4 Blind Man

Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? "Then the disciples went away again unto their own" (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping." For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre.

"And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre." Why she did so I know not. For she was not ignorant that He whom she sought was no longer there, since she had herself also carried word to the disciples that He had been taken from thence; while they, too, had come to the sepulchre, and had sought the Lord's body, not merely by looking, but also by entering, and had not found it. What then does it mean, that, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked again into the sepulchre? Was it that her grief was so excessive that she hardly thought she could believe either their eyes or her own? Or was it rather by some divine impulse that her mind led her to look within?

(Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) She then saw, with the other women, the Angel sitting on the right, on the stone which had been rolled away from the sepulchre, at whose words it was that she looked into the sepulchre. (Mat. 28:5.)

(Tr. cxxi) In her too great grief she could believe neither her own eyes, nor the disciples'. Or was it a divine impulse which caused her to look in?

Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, "The disciples," it saith, "went away unto their own home"; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay.

And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him.

But Mary stood at the tomb outside, "that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulchre," and she remained perseveringly: therefore she found: Luke 11: "But if he shall continue knocking, I say to you, even though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many loaves as he needs"; Colossians 4: "Continue steadfastly in prayer, watching in it," etc. Weeping: Augustine: "The eyes which had sought the Lord and had not found him were now given over to tears, and the woman grieved more that the Lord had been taken away from the tomb than that he had been slain upon the wood."

It should be noted that Mary wept from compunction, Luke 7; she wept from compassion, above, chapter 11: "Jesus, when he saw her weeping"; she wept from devotion, as here, concerning which the Psalm says: "My tears have been my bread day and night, while it is said to me daily: Where is your God?"

While therefore she wept. Here consolation is offered to the desolate one, both in vision and in speech, but she is consoled by neither. In vision she is consoled by the sight of the Angels; whence he says: While therefore she wept, as one desolate, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, so that she might at least receive some consolation from the sight of the place: but she received a greater one. She stooped down, through humility: Job 22: "He who has been humbled shall be in glory, and he who has lowered his eyes, he himself shall be saved."

Question. Concerning what he says, that while Mary wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb. Why was she looking, since she knew he was not there? Gregory responds: "For one who loves, to have looked once does not suffice, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching." And Augustine says that "because she loved vehemently, therefore she thought that neither her own nor others' eyes should easily be believed."

Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner in the city, by loving the truth, washed away the stains of her sin with tears: and the voice of Truth is fulfilled, by which it is said: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much." For she who had previously remained cold through sinning, afterward burned ardently through loving. For after she came to the tomb, and did not find the Lord's body there, she believed it had been taken away, and announced this to the disciples. They came and saw, and believed that it was as the woman had said. And of them it is immediately written: "The disciples therefore went away to their own homes." And then it is added: "But Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping."

In this matter it should be considered how great a force of love had kindled this woman's mind, who did not depart from the Lord's tomb even when the disciples departed. She was seeking the one she had not found, she wept while seeking, and inflamed by the fire of her love, she burned with desire for him whom she believed had been taken away. Hence it happened that she alone then saw him, she who remained to seek, because indeed the virtue of a good work is perseverance, and by the voice of Truth it is said: "He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved." And by the precept of the law, the tail of the victim is commanded to be offered in sacrifice. In the tail, of course, is the end of the body; and he sacrifices well who brings the sacrifice of a good work to the end of the required action. Hence Joseph is described as having had a full-length tunic among the rest of his brothers. A tunic reaching to the heel is a good work carried through to completion.

But Mary, as she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb. Certainly she had already seen the tomb empty, had already announced that the Lord had been taken away; why is it that she stoops down again, desires to see again? But for one who loves, to have looked once is not enough, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching. Therefore she sought first, and did not find; she persevered in seeking, whence it happened that she found, and it came about that desires delayed grew, and growing, grasped what they had found. Hence it is that the Church says of the same bridegroom in the Song of Songs: "In my bed through the nights I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, and did not find him. I will arise and go about the city; through the streets and squares I will seek him whom my soul loves." She also repeats the failure of finding, saying: "I sought him, and did not find him." But because discovery does not delay itself long if the search does not cease, she adds: "The watchmen who guard the city found me. Have you seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed a little beyond them, I found him whom my soul loves."

For we seek the beloved in bed when in some little rest of the present life we sigh with longing for our Redeemer. We seek by night, because even if the mind is now awake in him, nevertheless the eye still grows dim. But whoever does not find his beloved, it remains that he arise and go about the city, that is, traverse the holy Church of the elect with mind and inquiry; let him seek him through streets and squares, that is, let him observe those walking through narrow and broad ways, so that if he can find any traces of him in them, he may search them out, because there are some, even of secular life, who have something to imitate in the practice of virtue. But as we seek, the watchmen who guard the city find us, because the holy fathers who guard the state of the Church meet our good endeavors, that they may teach us by their word or their writing. When we pass a little beyond them, we find him whom we love, because our Redeemer, though by humility a man among men, was nevertheless by divinity above men. Therefore when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is found, because when we perceive that the prophets and apostles are beneath him, we consider that he who is God by nature is above men.

First, therefore, he is sought without being found, so that afterward, when found, he may be held more tightly. For holy desires, as we have said, grow by delay. But if they fail by delay, they were not desires. With this love burned whoever was able to reach the truth. Hence David says: "My soul has thirsted for the living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?" Hence he admonishes us, saying: "Seek his face always." Hence the prophet says: "My soul has desired you in the night, but also with my spirit in my inmost heart I will watch for you from early morning." Hence again the Church says in the Song of Songs: "I am wounded with love." For it is just that she should reach health from the sight of the physician, who bears the wound of love in her breast through the heat of her desire for him. Hence again she says: "My soul melted when the beloved spoke." For the mind of a person not seeking the form of its Creator is badly hardened, because it remains cold in itself. But if it has now begun to burn with desire to follow him whom it loves, melted by the fire of love it runs. It becomes anxious with desire, all things in the world that pleased grow worthless, there is nothing that delights outside the Creator, and things that formerly delighted the soul afterward become grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles its sadness, as long as he who is desired is not yet seen. The mind grieves, the very light is wearisome; and by such fire the rust of guilt is refined in the mind, and the kindled soul, as if in the manner of gold, because through use it lost its appearance, becomes bright through burning.

(Hom. xxv. ut supr.) For to have looked once is not enough for love. Love makes one desire to look over and over again.

(Hom. xxv.) She sought the body, and found it not; she persevered in seeking; and so it came to pass that she found. Her longings, growing the stronger, the more they were disappointed, at last found and laid hold on their object. For holy longings ever gain strength by delay; did they not, they would not be longings. Mary so loved, that not content with seeing the sepulchre, she stooped down and looked in: let us see the fruit which came of this persevering love: And seeth two Angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

(Hom. lxxxvi) Be not astonished that Mary wept for love at the sepulchre, and Peter did not; for the female sex is naturally tender, and inclined to weep.

(Hom. lxxxvi) The sight of the sepulchre itself was some consolation. Nay, behold her, to console herself still more, stooping down, to see the very place where the body lay: And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre.

Mary, with the sensitivity and love of tears characteristic of women, stands at the tomb and weeps. Not finding Jesus, she gazes at the place where the beloved body had been laid, and in this alone finds consolation. For this she is also deemed worthy to see more than the disciples.

2491 First, it was constant, and it deserves praise, especially considering that the disciples left, the disciples went back, not yet understanding the scripture "that he must rise from the dead," back to their homes, where they were staying and from where they had run to the tomb. Their fear was so great that they did not stay together: I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter" [Zech 13:7]; "The holy stones lie scattered at the head of every street" (Lam 4:1). Further, she stood there, lingering near the tomb, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. The disciples had left, but a stronger and more burning affection fixed the weaker sex to the spot.

2492 A question arises here, because Mark (16:5‑8) says that the women "went out and fled from the tomb." Therefore, they must have been within it. Why then does John say that Mary stood outside? We should say to answer this that the tomb of Christ was hewn out of rock and surrounded by a garden, as was stated before. Sometimes, therefore, the Evangelists calls only the place where the body of Christ had been laid the tomb, and at other times the entire enclosure is called the tomb. Thus when the women are said to enter into the tomb [as in Mark 16:5], this should be understood to mean the entire enclosure. But when it says here that Mary stood outside, the Evangelist is referring to the tomb hewn out of rock. But this rock‑hewn tomb was within the enclosure they had already entered. Mary was standing here because of the unwavering love which had inflamed her heart "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Cor 15:58); "Our feet have been standing within your gates" (Ps 122:2).

2493 Secondly, Mary's devotion is admired because it issued in tears, for she stood there weeping: "She weeps bitterly in the night" (Lam 1:2). There are two kinds of tears: tears of compunction, to wash away sins ‑ "Every night I flood my bed with tears" (Ps 6:7) ‑ and tears of devotion, from a desire for heavenly things ‑ "He goes forth," hastening towards heavenly things, "weeping, bearing the seed for sowing" (Ps 126:6). Mary Magdalene had copious tears of compunction at the time of her conversion, when she had been the village sinner. Then, in her love for the truth, she washed the stains of her sins with her tears: "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47). She also shed abundant tears of devotion over the passion and resurrection of Christ, as we see here.

2494 Thirdly, her devotion is admired because of her earnest search for Christ, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. This weeping of Mary came from the desire of love. For it is the nature of love to want its beloved present; and if the beloved cannot be really present, it at least wants to think of the beloved: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Mt 6:21). Mary shed these bitter tears because the eyes which had sought her Lord and did not find him were now freed for tears, and she grieved the more because he had been taken from the tomb. The life of such a Teacher had been destroyed, but his memory remained. Since Mary could not have him present, she wanted at least to look at the place where he had been buried, so she stooped to look into the tomb. We learn from this that we should look at the death of Christ with a humble heart: "You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes" (Mt 11:25). She stooped to look, giving us the example to look continually on the death of Christ with the eyes of our mind, for one look is not enough for one who loves, for the force of love increases the desire to explore: "Looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame" (Heb 12:2). She stooped to look, pressed down by the love of Christ: "The love of Christ presses us" [2 Cor 5:14]. Or again, according to Augustine, by a divine impulse in her soul she was made to look about, and saw something greater, the angels: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14).

For look she did, "and saw two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." Why is it that one was sitting at the head, and the other at the feet? Was it, since those who in Greek are called angels are in Latin nuntii [in English, news-bearers], that in this way they signified that the gospel of Christ was to be preached from head to foot, from the beginning even to the end?

(Tr. cxxi) But why did one sit at the head, the other at the feet? To signify that the glad tidings of Christ's Gospel was to be delivered from the head to the feet, from the beginning to the end. The Greek word Angel means one who delivers news.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv) Here the Angels must be understood to rise up, for Luke describes them as seen standing.

And she saw two Angels in white, sitting. Therefore they sit in white, because they had come to announce the splendor of our solemnity, namely the resurrection. One at the head and another at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. Gregory explains why they were positioned thus. "He," he says, "was to be announced through his passion, who is God before the ages and man at the end of the ages: as it were, the Angel sits at the head, when through the Apostle John it is preached that In the beginning was the Word, etc.; and as it were at the feet, when it is said: The Word was made flesh." And thus consolation was made for her from the vision: Luke, the last chapter: "Certain women from among us amazed us, who before dawn were at the tomb, and not finding his body, came saying that they had also seen a vision of Angels, who say that he is alive."

Question. Concerning what he says, that after the departure of the disciples she saw Angels: because it is said in Luke 24 that the women reported to the Apostles that they had seen Angels; and then it is said that the disciples went to the tomb. Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists that "Luke says this by way of recapitulation; for they ran to the tomb when it had only been announced concerning the body having been taken away; and afterward the vision of the Angels occurred, which they subsequently reported."

Question. There is a doubt: because in Mark 16 it is said of one Angel only: Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, covered with a white robe. Likewise, Mark says Mary entered, but this one says she only looked in. To this Augustine responds in the third book of On the Harmony of the Evangelists: "On the first day of the week," he says, "that is, on the Lord's day, at dawn the women came to the tomb, as all the Evangelists narrate; and when they saw the stone taken away, before they looked more carefully, they ran and announced it to Peter and John, who ran to the tomb and afterward returned. But Mary with others stood at the tomb outside weeping, that is, before that place of the rock-hewn sepulcher, but nevertheless within that space into which they had already entered. Then they saw an Angel sitting on the right upon the stone rolled away from the tomb, of which Angel Matthew 28 and Mark 16 narrate. Then he said to them: Fear not, etc., which Matthew and Mark say. At these words Mary, while she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb, as is said here; where she saw two Angels in white sitting, who say to her: Woman, why do you weep? And then it is to be understood that the Angels rose and stood, as Luke says, that two men stood beside them in shining garments." Whence the contradiction is resolved from the fact that one says what the other omits; and from the fact that Mark calls the tomb a certain space before the sepulchre enclosed by a wall, while John means the very place in which the body of Jesus lay.

The angels appeared sitting at the head and at the feet where the Body of Jesus had lain; thereby, as it were, signifying to the woman, who thought that the Lord had been taken away, that no one could have done despite unto the holy Body while angels kept watch and holy powers encompassed the Temple of God, for they knew their Lord. One may raise the question, not unreasonably, how it was that the blessed angels said nothing to the holy disciples, and did not even appear unto them, but were both seen by the woman and also spake unto her. We reply, then, that it was the object of the Saviour Christ to instil into the minds of those who loved Him the perfect knowledge of the mystery concerning Him; but that this perfect knowledge was in different ways given unto them, and adapted to the requirements of those who stood in need of it. The course of events itself, as compared with the expectations raised in Holy Writ, sufficed to give the holy disciples adequate knowledge, and begat in them a confidence that did not admit of doubt. For they went home trusting in the Holy Scriptures, and it would have been superfluous for those, whose faith was thus firmly grounded, to be taught by the mouth of the holy angels; but it was very necessary to the woman, who knew not the Holy and Divine Scripture, and by no other means could apprehend the deep mystery of the Resurrection.

And so she who loves thus, who bends down again to the tomb she had looked at, let us see by what fruit the force of love redoubles in her the work of seeking. It follows: "She saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid."

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord's body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And it is as if the angel sits at the feet, when he says: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

We can also understand the two Testaments by the two angels, one earlier and the other following. These angels are joined to one another through the place of the Lord's body, because indeed both Testaments, while they announce with equal meaning that the Lord became incarnate and died and rose again, sit as it were the earlier Testament at the head, and the later Testament at the feet. Hence also the two cherubim that cover the mercy seat look upon one another with their faces turned toward the mercy seat. For cherubim means "fullness of knowledge." And what is signified by the two cherubim except both Testaments? And what is figured by the mercy seat except the incarnate Lord? Of whom John says: "For he is the propitiation for our sins." And while the Old Testament proclaims that this was to be done which the New Testament declares was done concerning the Lord, it is as if both cherubim look upon one another, while they turn their faces toward the mercy seat, because while they see the incarnate Lord placed between them, they do not disagree in their view, for they narrate the mystery of his dispensation in harmony.

(Hom. xxv. in Evang. c. 1, 14) The Angel sits at the head when the Apostles preach that in the beginning was the Word: he sits, as it were, at the feet, when it is said, The Word was made flesh. By the two Angels too we may understand the two testaments; both of which proclaim alike the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The Old seems to sit at the head, the New at the feet.

By all these circumstances, as though a door was being opened for her, she was led by little and little to the knowledge of the Resurrection. And the manner of their sitting invited her to question them, for they showed that they knew what had taken place; on which account they did not sit together either, but apart from one another. For because it was not likely that she would dare at once to question them, both by questioning her, and by the manner of their sitting, they bring her to converse.

And therefore she received no small reward for this her great zeal. For what the disciples saw not, this saw the woman first, Angels sitting, the one at the feet, the other at the head, in white; even the dress was full of much radiance and joy. Since the mind of the woman was not sufficiently elevated to accept the Resurrection from the proof of the napkins, something more takes place, she beholdeth something more; Angels sitting in shining garments, so as to raise her thus awhile from her passionate sorrow, and to comfort her. But they said nothing to her concerning the Resurrection, yet is she gently led forward in this doctrine. She saw countenances bright and unusual; she saw shining garments, she heard a sympathizing voice.

She saw what they did not see, namely: two Angels. The vision of the Angels was for her the greatest consolation. And their bright garments, and their sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, showed that they knew something greater, and, if asked, could instruct. Every soul that has mastery over the passions is called Mary. Having been purified through dispassion, she sees in Jesus both God and Man. For one of the Angels, sitting at the head, points to the Divinity, and the other, sitting at the feet, to the humble incarnation of the Word.

2495 Next the Evangelist describes the sight of the angels (v 12). He mentions four things.

2496 First, what Mary saw, which was that she saw two angels, which goes to show that all orders of angels, both those "assisting" and those "ministering," were in service to Christ: "Let all God's angels worship him" (Heb 6:1).

A question arises here because Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) say that Mary and the other women saw one angel on the right side of the tomb, while here we have two angels and they are inside. Each one is correct, for Matthew and Mark tell what occurred first, when the women first came, and believing that Christ was taken, returned to the disciples. But John recounts what happened after Mary returned with the disciples and remained after they had left.

2497 Secondly, he mentions their raiment, in white. This shows the splendor of the resurrection and the glory of the risen Christ: "They shall walk with me in white" (Rev 3:4). Indeed, we read that the armies of heaven followed him and were clothed in white, that is, raised to heavenly glory (Rev 19:14).

2498 Thirdly, we see that they were sitting. This indicates the calmness and power of Christ, who being now at rest from all afflictions, reigns in immortal flesh and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "Sit at my right hand" (Ps 110:1); he will sit "upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom" (Is 9:7).

2499 Fourthly, we see how they were positioned, one at the head and one at the feet. We can refer this to three things. First, to the two Testaments. The word "angel" in Greek means "messenger," and both Testaments brought messages about Christ: "And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!'" (Mt 21:9). So the angel sitting at the head signifies the Old Testament, and the angel at the feet the New Testament.

Secondly, we can relate this to those who preach Christ. There are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human: the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3), and the feet of Christ are his human nature: "We will adore in the place where his feet stood" [Ps 132:7]. So, those who preach the divinity of Christ ‑ as in "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1) ‑ are sitting at the head; those who preach his humanity ‑ as in "And the Word became flesh" (1:14) ‑ are sitting at the feet.

Thirdly, we can refer this to the time when the mysteries of Christ are announced. Then one angel sits at the head and the other at the feet because they signified that the mysteries of Christ would be announced from the head or beginning of the world to its end: "You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26).

"They say to her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." The angels forbade her tears: for by such a position what else did they announce, but that which in some way or other was a future joy? For they put the question, "Why weepest thou?" as if they had said, Weep not. But she, supposing they had put the question from ignorance, unfolded the cause of her tears. "Because," she said, "they have taken away my Lord:" calling her Lord's inanimate body her Lord, meaning a part for the whole; just as all of us acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord, who of course is at once both the Word and soul and flesh, was nevertheless crucified and buried, while it was only His flesh that was laid in the sepulchre. "And I know not," she added, "where they have laid Him." This was the greater cause of sorrow, because she knew not where to go to mitigate her grief. But the hour had now come when the joy, in some measure announced by the angels, who forbade her tears, was to succeed the weeping.

(Tr. cxxi) But she, thinking that they wanted to know why she wept, tells them the reason: She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord. The lifeless body of her Lord, she calls her Lord, putting the part for the whole; just as we confess that Jesus Christ the Son of God was buried, when only His flesh was buried. And I know not where they have placed Him: it was a still greater grief, that she did not know where to go to console her grief.

They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? Not only does the Lord console her by sight, but also by the speech of the Angels: whence he says: They say to her: Woman, why do you weep? as if to say: do not weep. For it was no longer a time for weeping, but for joy, since the Lord was rising. But she refused to be consoled, recalling the cause of her grief: Because they have taken away my Lord, that is, his body, is said by synecdoche: and I do not know where they have laid him. Augustine: "This was the greater cause of grief, because she did not know where to go to console her grief." Whence she could say that verse of the Psalm: "My soul refused to be consoled" etc.; Lamentations 1: "Therefore my eye weeps and sheds tears, because my consoler has departed from me, he who converts my soul."

Observe that the tears shed for Christ do not lose their reward, nor is it long before love for him bears fruit. Rather, his grace and rich restitution will follow closely in the wake of pain. Notice how—as Mary was sitting there, her cheeks bedewed with mourning for her beloved Lord whom she had lost—notice how the Savior granted to her the knowledge of the mystery about him through the mouth of holy angels. They tell her to stop crying because this was no occasion for tears. She was making a subject for rejoicing a cause of grief. Why, indeed, they say, when death has been subdued, and corruption has lost its power and our Savior Christ has risen again and made a new pathway for the dead back to incorruption and to life—why would you misunderstand what is going on now? Why are you so distraught with pain when what is actually going on calls for rejoicing? You should be glad, even ecstatic! And so, why then are you crying and, in effect detracting from the honor due to what amounts to a celebration?

His body too is called "the Lord" on account of the inherent Godhead.

The angels seek Mary, saying: "Woman, why do you weep?" And she says to them: "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." For indeed the sacred words which stir up tears of love in us also console those same tears, since they promise us the sight of our Redeemer.

But it should be noted according to the historical sense that the woman did not say: "They have taken away the body of my Lord," but "They have taken away my Lord." For it is the usage of sacred Scripture sometimes to signify the whole from a part, and sometimes a part from the whole. For it signifies the whole from a part, as it is written concerning the sons of Jacob: "That Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls." For souls did not descend into Egypt without bodies; but through the soul alone the whole person is signified, because the whole is expressed from a part. And only the Lord's body had lain in the tomb, and Mary was not seeking the body of the Lord, but the Lord who had been taken away, evidently designating a part from the whole.

(Hom. fin.) The very declarations of Scripture which excite our tears of love, wipe away those very tears, by promising us the sight of our Redeemer again.

"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." She speaks very warmly and affectionately. "What sayest thou? Knowest thou not yet anything concerning the Resurrection, but dost thou still form fancies about His being laid?" Seest thou how she had not yet received the sublime doctrine?

And the words "why are you weeping?" are full of sincere sympathy. So that Mary would not be troubled, as a woman, by this question they calm her distress. They ask with such sympathy and gentleness: "Woman! why are you weeping?" And she answers with fervor and love: "They have taken away my Lord, and that is why I weep; I do not know where they have laid Him; I would go there and anoint His body, and in this, at least, I would find some consolation."

2500 Next, the Evangelist gives the greeting of the angels (20:13): first their question; and then Mary's answer.

2501 Concerning the first, the angels knew that Mary was uncertain about the resurrection and so as if beginning anew they asked her the reason for her tears: they, the angels, said to her, Woman, why are you weeping? This was like saying: Do not cry for there is no need for it, because "Weeping may tarry for the night," of the passion, "but joy comes with the morning," of the resurrection (Ps 30:5); "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded" (Jer 31:16). In this regard we can recall to mind that Gregory said that the very same sacred words which excite our tears of love console those same tears when they promise us hope in our Redeemer: "When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul" (Ps 94:19).

2502 Mary thought that they were questioning her because of their ignorance, and regarded them not as angels but as men; so she gave the reason for her tears: They have taken the Lord, that is, the body of my Lord. Here she was referring to a part by mentioning the whole, just like we profess that the Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God was buried, although only his flesh was buried, because his divinity was never separated from his flesh. And I do not know where they have laid him. This was the reason for her desolation: she did not know where to go to find him to soothe her sorrow.

2503 Is it a consolation for one who loves to have something that belonged to the beloved? According to Augustine, in his Confessions, this would be more a cause of sorrow. For this reason he said that he fled from all the places where he had formerly spent time with his friend. Still, Chrysostom says that this would be a cause of consolation. Each of these is true. In all cases where there is a mixture of joy and sadness, the hope for the thing desired brings pleasure ‑ "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation" (Rom 12:12) ‑ and also brings sorrow ‑ "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (Prv 13:12). But hope does not cause these from the same point of view. Hope causes joy because it regards the thing loved as able to be obtained; but insofar as this thing is actually absent it produces sorrow. It is like that here: something belonging to a friend, because it stands for the friend, is pleasant to the lover; while inasmuch as it recalls the absence of the one loved it produces sadness.

This was foretold in the Song of Songs: "On my bed I sought the one my soul loves. I sought him in the night and did not find him." Of those also who found him and held him by the feet, it is foretold, in the same book, "I will hold the one my soul loves and will not let him go."

Lastly, "when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, If thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master." Let no one speak ill of the woman because she called the gardener, Sir (domine), and Jesus, Master. For there she was asking, here she was recognizing; there she was showing respect to a person of whom she was asking a favor, here she was recalling the Teacher of whom she was learning to discern things human and divine. She called one lord (sir), whose handmaid she was not, in order by him to get at the Lord to whom she belonged. In one sense, therefore, she used the word Lord when she said, "They have taken away my Lord; and in another, when she said, Sir (lord), if thou hast borne Him hence." For the prophet also called those lords who were mere men, but in a different sense from Him of whom it is written, "The Lord is His name." But how was it that this woman, who had already turned herself back to see Jesus, when she supposed Him to be the gardener, and was actually talking with Him, is said to have again turned herself, in order to say unto Him "Rabboni," but just because, when she then turned herself in body, she supposed Him to be what He was not, while now, when turned in heart, she recognized Him to be what He was.

(Tr. cxxi) The hour was now come, which the Angels announced, when sorrow should be succeeded by joy: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back.

(Tr. cxxi) Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favour; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if Thou have borne Him away.

When she had said these things. Here, to her who is unwilling to be consoled, the manifestation of Christ occurs: and first he manifests himself to the senses of the flesh, then of the mind: to the senses of the body, namely to sight through appearance and to hearing through conversation. She first beholds Jesus, whence he says: When she had said these things, by which she was showing that she did not wish to be consoled; she turned around and saw Jesus standing. She turned because love did not allow her to stand still, but rather she looked now here, now there. Or, as Chrysostom says, "Christ, appearing silently behind her, struck the Angels with awe, and they by their movement and gesture showed that they had seen something great: and this turned the woman around." And she saw Jesus, with the eyes of the body, not of the heart: whence: And she did not know that it was Jesus.

The woman, or rather all womankind, is slow of understanding. For she does not understand the hidden meaning of what met her gaze, but rather announces it as the cause of her grief. But as she ceased not to call Christ Lord, and thereby signified her love towards Him, she is justly permitted to enjoy the sight of the object of her desire. For she beholds |655 Jesus, though she did not think Him to be at her side; and why? Either her ignorance was caused by our Saviour Christ still concealing Himself by His Divine power, and not allowing Himself very easily to be recognised by the eye of the beholder; or, as it was still early in the morning, she could not readily distinguish what was before her eyes, as night somehow prevented her from so doing, and scarcely revealed the Figure of Him Who was drawing nigh. Therefore, also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Song of Songs, makes mention of His walk on this night, and the moisture of the morning dew, in the words: For My Head is filled with dew, and My Locks with the drops of the night.

When she had said these things, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and she did not know that it was Jesus. It should be noted that Mary, who still doubted about the Lord's resurrection, turned around to see Jesus, because evidently through that very doubt of hers she had, as it were, turned her back to the Lord's face, since she did not at all believe that he had risen. But because she both loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognize him, and love both showed him to her and doubt hid him. Her continued ignorance is expressed when it is added: "And she did not know that it was Jesus."

(Hom. xxv.) We must observe that Mary, who as yet doubted our Lord's resurrection, turned back to see Jesus. By her doubting she turned her back, as it were, upon our Lord. Yet inasmuch as she loved, she saw Him. She loved and doubted: she saw, and did not recognise Him: And saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Was he one person when he was not known and another when he was known? He was surely one and the same. Whether, therefore, they knew him or not depended on their sight. It did not depend on him who was seen. And yet, it did depend on him in this sense, that he held their eyes so that they might not know him. And finally, in order that you may see that the mistake that held them was not to be attributed to the Lord's body but to the fact that their eyes were closed, we are told, "Their eyes were opened, and they knew him." This is why, as long as Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus and sought the living among the dead, she thought he was the gardener. Afterward she recognized him, and then she called him Lord.

And by what kind of consequence is it, that she having spoken to them, and not having yet heard anything from them, turned back? Methinks that while she was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the Angels with awe; and that they having beheld their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord; and this drew the woman's attention, and caused her to turn herself backwards. To them then He appeared on this wise, but not so to the woman, in order not at the first sight to terrify her, but in a meaner and ordinary form, as is clear from her supposing that He was the gardener. It was meet to lead one of so lowly a mind to high matters, not all at once, but gently.

"Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." Again she speaks of laying down, and taking away, and carrying, as though speaking of a corpse. But her meaning is this; "If ye have borne him hence for fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take him." Great is the kindness and loving affection of the woman, but as yet there is nothing lofty with her. Wherefore He now setteth the matter before her, not by appearance, but by Voice. For as He was at one time known to the Jews, and at another time unperceived though present; so too in speaking, He, when He chose, then made Himself known; as also when He said to the Jews, "Whom seek ye?" they knew neither the Countenance nor the Voice until He chose. And this was the case here. And He named her name only, reproaching and blaming her that she entertained such fancies concerning One who lived.

Why did Mary turn around? When she was conversing with the Angels, what prompted her to turn back? Probably, while she was speaking with the Angels, Jesus, suddenly appearing behind her, astonished them, and they, having seen the Master, by their appearance, movement, and gaze immediately revealed that they had seen the Lord, and this woman (Mary), having noticed this, turned around.

2504 Now the Evangelist shows how Mary came to see Christ: first, he tells how she saw Christ; secondly, how he was recognized by her. Concerning the first, we see her seeing Christ; and then what Christ said to her.

2505 Firstly, then, Saying this, that is, when Mary said this to the angels, she turned round. Chrysostom wonders why Mary, who was speaking to the angels, whom she considered to be at least men deserving of respect, turned around before they had a chance to answer her. The answer is that while Mary was responding to the angels' question Christ arrived and the angels stood out of reverence. When Mary saw this, she was puzzled and turned around to see what had made them stand up. Thus in Luke (24:4) mention is made that the two angels were seen standing.

Having turned around, Mary saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus, for he did not appear glorious to her, although the angels saw him as glorious and were honoring him. We see from this that if anyone desires to see Christ, they must turn round to him: "Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you" (Zech 1:3). Those come to the point of seeing him who entirely turn themselves to him by love: "She [Wisdom] hastens to make herself known to those who desire her" (Wis 6:14).

Mystically, this signifies that at one time Mary had turned her back to Christ by her disbelief, but when she turned her soul to knowing him, she turned round to him.

2506 Why didn't Mary recognize Christ, since he was the same person as before? We should say that it was either because she did not believe that the one she had seen dead had risen, or else her eyes were held so that she would not recognize him, like the two disciples on their way to Emmaus (Lk 24:16).

While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, "Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him." So we gather that there were two visions of angels. We also understand that our Lord too was seen twice: once when Mary took him for the gardener and again when he met them by the way. In this way, by repeating his presence, he strengthens their faith and calms their fears.… And so Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, not alone but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv. 69) She then went away from the sepulchre, i. e. from that part of the garden before the rock which had been hollowed out, and with her the other women. But these, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and amazement, and said nothing to any man: Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 25) While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. (Matt 28:9) So we gather that there were two visions of Angels; and that our Lord too was seen twice, once when Mary took Him for the gardener, and again, when He met them by the way, and by this repeating His presence confirmed their faith. And so Mary Magdalen came and told the disciples, not alone, but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

Mystically, Mary, which name signifies, mistress, enlightened, enlightener, star of the sea, stands for the Church, which is also Magdalen, i. e. towered, (Magdalen being Greek for tower,) as we read in the Psalms, Thou hast been a strong tower for me. (Ps. 61:3) In that she announced Christ's resurrection to the disciples, all, especially those to whom the office of preaching is committed, are admonished to be zealous in setting forth to others whatever is revealed from above.

Mary Magdalene therefore came. Here the fifth point is noted, namely the report of the manifestation made by Magdalene: whence it says: Announcing to the disciples: Because I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me, supply: which have been said above: Chrysostom says: "She announces both the vision and the words, so that they might be instructed in both."

Question. Concerning the order of this manifestation. For if the disciples were more worthy, it seems that the Lord ought to have appeared to them first, and again that the disciples should teach the women rather than the women the disciples. I respond: It must be said that this was done by the order of divine dispensation and by the merit of human solicitude: the order of divine dispensation: on account of which Gregory says: "Because in paradise the woman served death to the man, from the sepulcher the woman announces life to men, and she narrates the words of the life-giver, she who had narrated the words of the death-dealing serpent." The merit of human solicitude, because, when the disciples withdrew, the woman remained afflicted and desolate: and therefore she more quickly merited to be consoled and refreshed by the Lord's appearance.

That race which is specially subject to weakness----I mean the race of women----is restored by the loving-kindness of our Saviour, Who, in a manner, rolled up in one the source and origin of our infirmities, and ameliorated them for the future. For Mary announced that she had seen the Lord, Who had escaped from the bonds of death, and had heard His Voice, and brought to the disciples the words of life, and the firstfruits of the Divine Gospel.

"Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and he said these things to me." Behold, the guilt of the human race is cut off from where it proceeded. For because in paradise a woman served death to man, from the tomb a woman announces life to men; and she narrates the words of her life-giver who had narrated the words of the death-bearing serpent. As if the Lord says to the human race not in words but in deeds: From the same hand by which the drink of death was brought to you, receive the cup of life.

(Hom. xxv.) So the sin of mankind is buried in the very place whence it came forth. For whereas in Paradise the woman gave the man the deadly fruit, a woman from the sepulchre announced life to men; a woman delivers the message of Him who raises us from the dead, as a woman had delivered the words of the serpent who slew us.

So great a good is perseverance and endurance. But how was it that they did not any more grieve when He was about to depart, nor speak as they had done before? At that time they were affected in such a way, as supposing that He was about to die; but now that He was risen again, what reason had they to grieve? Moreover, Mary reported His appearance and His words, which were enough to comfort them.

Mary, having been deemed worthy of such words, departs and announces this to the disciples. See how good are zeal and perseverance. Be zealous yourself as well, and perhaps you will learn something higher, and from a disciple of the Word you will become a teacher.

2522 Mary was quick to obey, as we see from Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples etc. "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor 11:23); "What I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God is Israel, I announce to you" (Is 21:10).

There are some who have entertained the idea-and those, too, who are no contemptible handlers of sacred eloquence-that the Apostle John was more loved by Christ on the ground that he never married a wife, and lived in perfect chastity from early boyhood. There is, indeed, no distinct evidence of this in the canonical Scriptures: nevertheless it is an idea that contributes not a little to the suitableness of the opinion expressed above, namely, that that life was signified by him, where there will be no marriage.

(Tract. cxxiv) He calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved, because Jesus had a greater and more familiar love for him, than for the rest; so that He made him lie on His breast at supper. In this way John the more commends the divine excellency of that Gospel which he preached. Some think, and they no contemptible commentators upon Scripture, that the reason why John was loved more than the rest, was, because he had lived in perfect chastity from his youth up. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Peter, turning around, saw that disciple etc. Here secondly, Peter, knowing his own death, inquires about the death of John: for he desired that he to whom he had been joined in life through great love might be joined to him in a likeness of death. And because Peter knew that the Lord loved John, he wanted to know by what death he wished him to die: therefore he says: Peter, turning around, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved, following, namely John. And a sign of special love is shown when it is added: who also reclined at the Supper upon his breast, above in chapter thirteen, and said: Lord, who is it that will betray you? He asked him what was secret: and this was a sign of love, because it was revealed to him, as is said above in chapter thirteen: and this is a sign of friendship, as is said above in chapter fifteen: "I have called you friends, because whatever I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you."

It is asked about what he says: That disciple whom Jesus loved. How did he dare to say this, when it is said in Ecclesiastes nine: No one knows whether he is worthy of love or of hatred? Likewise, since Christ loved all, why did John attribute this to himself, namely that he was loved more? This seems false: because Peter loved more; therefore he was better; but God loves the better more; therefore he loved Peter more than John. To this it can be answered that John knew by revelation or by certain signs that he was loved. To the second, Augustine seems to say that John was loved more, but Peter loved more; and therefore he asks who was better; and he says that Peter was better, but John was happier; and he turns these words to allegory, saying that through John the contemplative life is signified, and through Peter the active life. But this increases the question further; whence Augustine himself says that justice is hidden here, and mercy is manifest. Therefore it must be said that to love more is understood in two ways: either with respect to a greater reward, and thus Jesus loved Peter more, this being understood in the sense that Peter always loved the Lord more. In another way, to love more refers to a greater outward demonstration, because he showed more signs of love: and thus he loved John more.

It is asked: why did he show himself more to John, since he loved Peter more than John? — It seems that there would be pretense in the Lord. To this it can be responded that although Peter merited a greater reward, nevertheless it was fitting for Christ to show greater familiarity to John, because John was young and was a virgin and innocent: and these are things which in a wondrous way, both in the sight of God and of men, make a person lovable and more pleasing. Whence Bede says: "This is John, who by the privilege of surpassing love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest; and the special prerogative of chastity had made him worthy of a more abundant love." And the Gloss says that "John was more intimate, because he was more tender."

For in Asia also great luminaries have fallen asleep who will rise again on the last day of the advent of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall search out all the saints.… And this is also where John is, who leaned on the bosom of the Lord, who was a priest wearing the miter, a martyr and a teacher, and he sleeps at Ephesus.

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts.

Imitate, therefore, the ambassador of our Lord, and be his follower in every thing. That John, again, who "reclined on the bosom of our Lord, and whom He greatly loved," [John 21:20] — he, too, was a holy person. For it was not without reason that our Lord loved him. Paul, also, and Barnabas, and Timothy, with all the others, "whose names are written in the book of life," [Philippians 4:3] — these, I say, all cherished and loved sanctity, and ran in the contest, and finished their course without blemish, as imitators of Christ, and as sons of the living God. Moreover, also, Elijah and Elisha, and many other holy men, we find to have lived a holy and spotless life. If, therefore, you desire to be like these, imitate them with all your power.

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.

Why does the evangelist mention that he leaned on His breast and asked, "Who is it that will betray You?" Not simply or by chance, but to show that Peter, even after his denial, had boldness before the Lord. For he who before the Cross did not dare to ask about the betrayer, but entrusted the question to another, namely John, is now entrusted with the care of all, and not only does he not entrust the question about himself to another, but even concerning that very disciple who enjoyed a special love above all the others, he asks the Lord and becomes, as it were, an intercessor before Him.

Now we see that John is commended: first, as to his past; then with respect to his future (v 21). John is commended on three points in his past.

First, John had the privilege of having Christ's special love. The Evangelist says, Peter turned, for he had begun to follow Jesus even bodily, and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved. Here we see that Peter, already made a shepherd, was intent on the care of others: "And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32). Now Jesus loved John without excluding the others, for above he said, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you" (15:9). But he loved John above the others with a special love. There were three reasons for this. First, because of his penetrating understanding: for teachers especially love their intelligent students: "A servant who deals wisely has the king's favor" (Prv 14:35). Secondly, because of his purity, for he was a virgin: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Thirdly, because of his youth, for we have tender feelings for the young and the weak, and act with friendship towards them. And this is the way Christ acted with the youthful John: "When Israel was a child, I loved him" (Hos 11:1). We can see from this that God especially loves those who serve him from their youth: "My soul desires the first ripe figs" (Mic 7:1).

But this seems to go against Proverbs (8:17): "I love those who love me." Peter loved Christ more than the others: "Do you love me more than these?" (21:15). Therefore, Christ should have loved Peter more than John. I answer: it could be said that John, because he was more loved, was happier; while Peter, because he loved more, was better. But this would be a violation of justice. Consequently, this refers to a mystery: that is, Peter and John stand for two kinds of life, the active and the contemplative, and the end and object of each is Christ. The active life, which Peter signifies, loves God more than the contemplative life (which is signified by John) because it feels more keenly the difficulties of this present life, and more intensely desires to be freed from them and to go to God. But God loves the contemplative life more, because he preserves it longer: it does not come to an end with death, as does the active life: "The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob" (Ps 87:2).

Some try to solve this problem using the literal sense. They distinguish two kinds of love in Christ, according to his two wills, his human and divine will. They say that Christ loved Peter more with his divine love, but he loved John more with his human love. The objection to this is that Christ's human will was entirely conformed to his divine will; and so the more he loved one with his divine will, so also he loved that one more with his human will. Therefore, we should say that he loves that one the more to whom he wills more good. He loved Peter more in the sense that he made Peter love him more; Christ loved John more in another sense, that is, by giving him a keener understanding. "The Lord will fill him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding" (Sir 15:3). Accordingly, Peter is better because charity is better than knowledge (cf. 1 Cor 13:8); but John is better in keenness of understanding. However, only God can weigh their merits: "The Lord weighs the spirit" (Prv 16:2).

And so others say, and this is better, that Peter loved Christ more in his members; and in this way he was also more loved by Christ. For this reason the Church was entrusted to him. But John loved Christ more in Himself, and in this way was more loved by Christ, who entrusted his mother to John's care. Or, one could say that Peter loved Christ more readily and fervently. While John was more loved by being given tokens of intimate friendship, which Christ gave him on account of his youth and purity.

John adds, who had lain close to his breast at the supper, which commends him to us on the second point, his special intimacy with Christ. This was just explained.

Thirdly, John is commended on account of the special confidence he had in Christ, so that he could question Christ with more assurance than all the others. Thus he adds that this disciple had said, Lord, who is it that is going to betray you? This was also explained before (13:25).

John is recalling his own privileges in order to exalt Peter. One might suppose that because Peter had denied Christ he would not be allowed back to his former intimacy. To reject this, John shows that he was admitted to a greater intimacy. The one who did not dare to question Christ at the supper, but asked John to do it, was made head over his brethren after the passion, and is now questioning Christ not only for himself, but also for John. We can understand from this that those who fall into sin sometimes rise in greater grace: "For just as you purposed to go astray from God, return with tenfold zeal to seek him" (Bar 4:28).

When Peter therefore had seen him, whom he knew to be specially beloved, he says to Jesus: Lord, but what about this man? supply: will he suffer, in order to come to you? Chrysostom: "Peter loved John greatly: because therefore the Lord had foretold great things to Peter, wishing to receive this one also as a sharer, he says: Lord, but what about this man?"

Wherefore hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He showeth also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts. When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spake beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, desiring to have John also to share with him, he said, "And what shall this man do?" "Shall he not come the same way with us?" And as at that other time not being able himself to ask, he puts John forward, so now desiring to make him a return, and supposing that he would desire to ask about the matters pertaining to himself, but had not courage, he himself undertook the questioning. What then saith Christ? "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Since he spake from strong affection, and wishing not to be torn away from him, Christ, to show that however much he might love, he could not go beyond His love, saith, "If I will that he tarry—what is that to thee?" By these words teaching us not to be impatient, nor curious beyond what seemeth good to Him. For because Peter was ever hot, and springing forward to enquiries such as this, to cut short his warmth, and to teach him not to enquire farther, He saith this.

Our Lord then having foretold such great things of him, and committed the world to him, and prophesied his martyrdom, and made known his greater love, Peter wishing to have John admitted to a share of this calling, says, And what shall this man do? as if to say, Will he not go the same way with us? For Peter had great love for John, as appears from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, which give many proofs of their close friendship. So Peter does John the same turn, that John had done him; thinking that he wanted to ask about himself, but was afraid, he puts the question for him.

When Peter heard this and was deemed worthy both of having the universe entrusted to him and of being crowned with martyrdom, then, out of his strong love for John, he asks about him as well: "And what about him? Will he not also go the same way as we? Will he not also be a partaker in the care and concern for the sheep?" For the words "follow Me" mean almost the same as: go, receive the sheep, go forth into the universe.

And so the Evangelist immediately shows Peter asking a question, When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man? This concerns the future of John. First, we have Peter's question; Christ's answer; and then the interpretation of the answer (v 23).

Regarding the first point, note that when our Lord said to Peter, "Follow me" (v 19), Peter did begin to follow him with bodily steps, and so did John. When Peter noticed John following he asked Christ about him, saying, Lord, what about this man? This was like saying: I am following you in your suffering. But this man, will he die also? John would have asked the same question had he dared.

But according to Chrysostom, Peter was questioning about the leadership of the Church, not about John's martyrdom. For Peter loved John more than all the other disciples, and they are always found together in the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. So Peter wanted to have John as his companion in the work of preaching. Peter says, Lord, what about this man? as if to say, "Let him come with me."

This is the disciple etc. Here is set forth the reason for confirming our faith. The Evangelist confirms this in us in two ways: by certifying in truth and by grounding in humility. He certifies in truth when he declares himself a true and reliable witness. He says therefore: This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things and has written these things, who is to be believed, all doubt being set aside, because we know that his testimony is true. Chrysostom: "Because he wrote with great certitude, he does not refuse to bring forward his own testimony, challenging each person to examine and scrutinize the things that were done. It is our custom, when we speak things that are very true, not to deny our own testimony: whence in Acts chapter five the Apostles said: We are witnesses of these words."

I think no wise man will doubt that the Lord would not have loved John if he had not been specially remarkable for virtue, and apt and perfectly equipped for every good work. For God can never be found to be inclined by any irrational leanings to those unworthy of His love, for such affections are more worthy of men. And He that was wholly proof against every assault and inroad of passion, and trod firmly in the path of every virtue, nay rather, was Virtue itself in all its forms, most assuredly would act in this, too, with judgment, and have His inclination free from all reproach----I mean, the inclination which led Him to deem him to whom this boon was due worthy of His love. After this admirable preface, then, and after having said that he was beloved, he modestly and with great humility says that he testified of these things; well and admirably inviting his hearers, as a necessary consequence, to assent to the things which he had written, and of which he had testified; for the preacher of truth cannot lie. Therefore, also, he says: We know that His witness is true. Dangerous, then, and awful is it assuredly, to lie at all; for man knoweth not how to bridle his tongue, and the Truth cannot love him that sinneth against truth.

John, who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, has left us one Gospel, although he confessed that he might have written so many that the world could not contain them. And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but he was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third. But not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain one hundred lines.

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." Why is it, that then, when none of the others do so, he alone uses these words, and that for the second time, witnessing to himself? for it seems to be offensive to the hearers. What then is the cause? He is said to have been the last who came to writing, Christ having moved and roused him to the work; and on this account he continually sets forth his love, alluding to the cause by which he was impelled to write. Therefore also he continually makes mention of it, to make his record trustworthy, and to show, that, moved from thence, he came to this work. "And I know," he saith, "that the things are true which he saith. And if the many believe not, it is permitted them to believe from this."

"Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly.

(Hom. lxxxviii. 2) John appeals to his own knowledge of these events, having been witness of them: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things. When we assert any undoubted fact in common life, we do not withhold our testimony: much less would he, who wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:32) And thus the other Apostles, And we are witnesses of these things, and wrote these things. John is only one who appeals to his own testimony; and he does so, because he was the last who wrote. And for this reason he often mentions Christ's love for him, i. e. to show the motive which led him to write, and to give weight to his history. And we know that his testimony is true. He was present at every event, even at the crucifixion, when our Lord committed His mother to him; circumstances which both show Christ's love, and his own importance as a witness. But if any believe not, let him consider what follows: And there are also many other things which Jesus did. If, when there were so many things to relate, I have not said so much as the other, and have selected often reproaches and contumelies in preference to other things, it is evident that I have not written partially. One who wants to show another off to advantage does the very contrary, omits the dishonourable parts.

(Hom. lxxxviii) This is said to show the power of Him Who did the miracles; i. e. that it was as easy for Him to do them, as it is for us to speak of them, seeing He is God over all, blessed for ever.

The interpreter [that is, Theodore himself] says that the words, "But there are also, etc." are not by John but by someone else.

Of the other Evangelists, not one testified about himself. They say that he undertook the writing of the Gospel after all the others, having been moved and stirred to do so by Christ. For this reason he constantly mentions His love for him, showing the reason why he undertook the writing, and that Christ entrusted this task to the one whom He loved more than the rest. And I know that he speaks the truth, that is: "What I have written, I have written with complete confidence, since I was present at everything—at the deeds and words, at the sufferings and the events after the resurrection. Therefore I boldly say of myself as well that I am truthful, and I invite anyone to examine and investigate each event individually." It is customary among us humans, when we are completely confident in the truth, not to refuse to offer our own testimony about it. So also the apostles said: "We are His witnesses in what we say, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). From what is it evident that I speak the truth and not to please the Teacher? From the fact that I omitted many things, it is evident that I did not wish to flatter Him. For I brought to light everything reproachful, not concealing even the fact that He was called a lawbreaker and a deceiver, and even a demoniac. Obviously, I was not trying to please Him. For whoever flatters does the opposite: he omits what is shameful and brings to light what is glorious.

Now we have the last part of this Gospel, which is a kind of epilogue. First, the Gospel is commended; and then the vastness of the subject treated (v 25). The Gospel is commended because of two things: its author, and its truth. Three things are mentioned about the author.

First, there is the authority of the author, because This is the disciple ‑ understanding what was mentioned before who was loved above the others, intimate with Christ, able to question him with confidence, and to whom it was granted to remain until Christ came. All these things refer to the authority of the author.

John is said to have been loved more than the others because of his unique charity: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (13:35). None of the other apostles speak so much of love for others as does John in his letters. We also read that as an old man he was carried to the church by his followers to teach the faithful. He taught only one thing: "Little children, love one another." This is the perfection of the Christian life.

Secondly, John's office is mentioned, which was to give testimony, for he says, who is bearing witness to these things. This is the special office of apostles: "You shall be my witnesses" (Acts 1:8); "You are my witnesses!" (Is 44:8).

Thirdly, he refers to his zeal when he says, and who has written these things. As an apostle he testified to the actions of Christ to those who were present; and in his zeal he recorded these actions in writing for those who were not with him and were to come after him: "Take a large tablet and write upon it in common characters" (Is 8:1); "The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure; and he who has little business may become wise" (Sir 38:24). For it was granted to John to live until the time when the Church was at peace; and this is the time when he wrote all these things. John mentions such things so that we will not think that his gospel has less authority than the other three, seeing that he wrote after the death of all the other apostles, and the other gospels, especially that of Matthew, had been approved by them.

Now John states that his Gospel is true, and he speaks in the person of the entire Church which received it: "My mouth will utter truth" (Prv 8:7). We should note that although many have written about Catholic truth, there is a difference among them: those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted. Thus John says, we know that his testimony is true: "If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). The reason for this is that only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith. The others have set forth this truth but in such a way that they do not want to be believed except in those things in which they say what is true.

"This is the disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also," he adds, "many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." We are not to suppose that in regard to local space the world would be unable to contain them; for how could they be written in it if it could not bear them when written? but perhaps it is that they could not be comprehended by the capacity of the readers: although, while our faith in certain things themselves remains unharmed, the words we use about them may not unfrequently appear to exceed belief. This will not take place when anything that was obscure or dubious is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which credit will be given. This mode of speaking is called by the Greek name hyperbole, by the masters not only of Greek, but also of Latin literature. And this mode is found not only here, but in several other parts also of the divine literature.

(Tract. cxxiv. 8) The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written; meaning not the world had not space for them, but that the capacity of readers was not large enough to hold them: though sometimes words themselves may exceed the truth, and yet the thing they express be true; a mode of speech which is used not to explain an obscure and doubtful, but to magnify or estimate a plain, thing: nor does it involve any departure from the path of truth; inasmuch as the excess of the word over the truth is evidently only a figure of speech, and not a deception. This way of speaking the Greeks call hyperbole, and it is found in other parts of Scripture.

There are also many other things which Jesus did. He shows that he did not write all things fully: in which he humbles our understanding, lest we believe ourselves capable of knowing all things. For this reason he says that he did not write them. Therefore he says: Which if they were written out one by one, I do not think the world itself could contain the books that would have to be written — the text should be construed thus: contain those books which would have to be written — because our capacity is small: whence above in chapter sixteen: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

It is asked: what does he mean when he says that the signs of Christ could not be contained in the whole world, since the world would contain the books not only if His deeds, but even all things that have been done from the beginning of the age, were written down? And it must be said that capacity is twofold: bodily and spiritual, which is through the intellect. If it is said of bodily capacity, it is spoken by way of hyperbole, as in other places of Scripture, as in the Psalm: They set their mouth against heaven: and concerning Solomon, that he made so great an abundance of silver as there are stones in Jerusalem, 3 Kings chapter ten. But if it is said or taken of the capacity of understanding, it is true according to the letter: whence Augustine: "We, knowing that our understanding could not contain the things that could be written concerning Christ: let us take care, by understanding with right faith what he wrote, and by practicing with right action what he taught, to arrive at the everlasting gifts which the Lord Himself promised," with the help of Him who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen.

Very great, then, says the apostle, will be the number of the miracles that God has done, and altogether without number will the list of his deeds be seen to be. And out of many thousands have these that are recorded been taken, as not being inadequate to profit to the uttermost those who read them. And let no one who is of a teachable spirit and loves instruction, John implies, blame the one who wrote this book because he has not recorded the rest. For if "the things" that he did "had been written"—every one, without any omission—then such an immeasurable number of the books would have filled the world. We maintain that, even as it is, the power of the Word has been displayed more than abundantly. For it is open to everyone to observe that a thousand miracles were performed by the power of our Savior. The preachers of the Gospels, however, have recorded the more remarkable of them, in all probability. They recorded what could best be confirmed by their hearers in incorruptible faith and those that would provide instruction in morality and doctrine. They did this so that, conspicuous for the orthodoxy of their faith and glorified by many works that result in righteousness, they might meet at the very gates of the city above. And, being joined to the church of the firstborn in the faith, they might at length attain to the kingdom of heaven in Christ.

Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And I think it was for this reason that John, the son of thunder, who with the loud voice of the doctrines contained in his Gospel rose above that of the preaching that heralded them, said at the close of his Gospel, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, so many that, in fact, if all of them were written, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." He certainly does not mean by these the miracles of healing, for of these the narrative [in general terms] leaves none unrecorded, even though it does not mention the names of all who were healed. For when he tells us that the dead were raised, that the blind received their sight, that the deaf heard, that the lame walked and that he healed all kinds of sickness and disease, he does not in this leave any miracle unrecorded but embraces each and all in these general terms. But it may be that the Evangelist means this in his profound wisdom: that we are to learn the majesty of the Son of God not by the miracles alone that he did in the flesh. For these are little compared with the greatness of his other work.… For since God has made all things in wisdom and to his wisdom there is no limit, … the world that is bounded by limits of its own cannot contain within itself the account of infinite wisdom. If, then, the whole world is too little to contain the teaching of the works of God, how many worlds could contain an account of the Lord of them all? For perhaps it will not be denied even by the tongue of the blasphemer that the maker of all things that have been created by the mere fiat of his will is infinitely greater than all. If, then, the whole creation cannot contain what might be said respecting itself—for this is, according to our explanation, what the great Evangelist is testifying to—how should human shallowness contain all that might be said of the Lord of creation?

"There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." "Whence it is clear that I could not have written to court favor; for I who, when the miracles were so many, have not even related so many as the others have, but omitting most of them, have brought forward the plots of the Jews, the stonings, the hatred, the insults, the revilings, and have shown how they called Him a demoniac and a deceiver, certainly could not have acted to gain favor. For it behooved one who courted favor to do the contrary, to reject the reproachful, to set forth the glorious." Since then he wrote what he did from full assurance, he does not decline to produce his own testimony, challenging men separately to enquire into and scrutinize the circumstances. For it is a custom with us, when we think that we are speaking exactly true, never to refuse our testimony; and if we do this, much more would he who wrote by the Spirit. What then the other Apostles when they preached declared, he also saith; "We are witnesses of the things spoken, and the Spirit which He hath given to them that obey Him." (Acts v. 32.)

And besides, he was present at all, and did not desert Him even when being crucified, and had His mother entrusted to him; all which things are signs of his love for Him, and of his knowing all things exactly. And if he has said that so many miracles had taken place, marvel thou not, but, considering the ineffable power of the Doer, receive with faith what is spoken. For it was as easy for Him to do whatever He would, as it is for us to speak, or rather much easier; for it sufficed that He should will only, and all followed.

And here we conclude … this commentary on the harp of the Spirit, on the heavenly theologian and Apostle who is the friend of the glory of the Lord, the holy John the younger.

Do not be amazed at what was said, that if books were written about the deeds of Jesus, the world could not contain them; but consider the ineffable power of God the Word and accept what was said with faith. For just as it is easy for us to speak, so it is easy for Him, and indeed far easier, to do whatever He pleases. Some say that this is said hyperbolically, according to the custom of Scripture; for Scripture habitually employs hyperboles. For example: "we saw cities reaching up to heaven" (Num. 13:29), "we saw sons, and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers" (Num. 13:34), and the like. In the same sense, they say, it is said here that the world could not contain the books that would be written. Otherwise, by "the world" they understand a person who is minded toward worldly things; but the divine and mysterious works accomplished by Jesus in the invisible and visible world, and in the dispensation of the last times, which is full of mysteries, the worldly person cannot comprehend, according to the saying: "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). But let us pray that the deeds and words of the Lord may never fall into oblivion among us, but that we may always open this book of the Beloved and seek out the treasure contained in the miracles and teaching of Jesus; that, having been purified in word and life, on the day of revelation we may be deemed worthy of the most ineffable deeds and mysteries which now, while we are in the world, we cannot contain, and may be made perfect in Christ Himself, Who loved us, and through His beloved disciple enlightened us with the theology and knowledge of Him — the Son, and of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

Now John states the incompleteness of his Gospel as compared with the reality, because Christ not only did these things but there are also many other things which Jesus did.

His statement, were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, can be understood in two ways. First, the word contain can refer to the capacity of our minds to understand. So the meaning is: So much could be said about Christ that the world could not understand all that could be written: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," that is, understand them (16:12). We could also regard this statement as a deliberate exaggeration; and it then indicates the abundance of Christ's works.

How reconcile this? He had just said, we know that his testimony is true, and then immediately resorts to hyperbole, exceeding the truth. According to Augustine, Scripture does use figures of speech, such as "I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne" (Is 6:1), and such statements are not false. This is so when hyperbole is used. The desire of the speaker is not that we accept the literal meaning of the words, but what they were intended to mean, that is, the great number of Christ's works. Hyperbole is not used to explain what is obscure or doubtful, but to exaggerate or minimize what is obvious. For example, to emphasize how plentiful something is, one can say that there is enough for a hundred or a thousand people. And to minimize something, one could say that there is hardly enough for three. This is not speaking falsely, because it is so obvious that the words contort the reality that they show that one does not intend to lie, but to indicate that something is great or small.

Or, this statement could be understood to refer to the power of Christ, who performed these signs; and the emphasis is on every one of them. For to write about each and every word and deed of Christ is to reveal the power of every word and deed. Now the words and deeds of Christ are also those of God. Thus, if one tried to write and tell of the nature of every one, he could not do so; indeed, the entire world could not do this. This is because even an infinite number of human words cannot equal one word of God. From the beginning of the Church Christ has been written about; but this is still not equal to the subject. Indeed, even if the world lasted a hundred thousand years, and books written about Christ, his words and deeds could not be completely revealed: "Of making many books there is no end" (Eccl 12:12); The works of God "are multiplied above number" (Ps 50:5).

You have heard, my brother, the lesson of the Gospel, wherein it is narrated that as the Lord Jesus passed by He saw a man which was blind from his birth. Now if the Lord saw him He did not pass him by, neither ought we to pass him by whom the Lord overlooked not; especially since he was blind from his birth, which is not mentioned without reason.

Now there is a blindness in which by the operation of illness the sight of the eyes is obscured, and this by the help of time is mitigated; there is a blindness also which is caused by the entrance of humours, and this, when the defect is removed, is cured by the aid of medicine; and this I say that you may know that it was not by skill but by Divine Power that he who was blind from his birth was healed. For the Lord gave him health as a free gift, not by any medicinal skill, for they whom the Lord Jesus healed were they whom no one could cure.

He that framed for Himself a body out of a virgin, is also the Former of other men. And He that raised Himself from the dead, will also raise again all that are laid down. He who raises wheat out of the ground with many stalks from one grain, He that made the tree that is cut down send forth fresh branches, He that made Aaron's dry rod put forth buds, will raise us up in glory; He that raised Him up that had the palsy whole, and healed him that had the withered hand, He that supplied a defective part to him that was born blind from clay and spittle, will raise us up; He that satisfied five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and caused a remainder of twelve baskets, and out of water made wine, and sent a piece of money out of a fish's mouth by me Peter to those that demanded tribute, will raise the dead.

All, certainly, that was done by our Lord Jesus Christ, both works and words, are worthy of our astonishment and admiration: His works, because they are facts; His words, because they are signs. If we reflect, then, on what is signified by the deed here done, that blind man is the human race; for this blindness had place in the first man through sin, from whom we all draw our origin, not only in respect of death, but also of unrighteousness. For if unbelief is blindness, and faith enlightenment, whom did Christ find a believer at His coming? seeing that the apostle, belonging himself to the family of the prophets, says: "And we also in times past were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." If "children of wrath," then children of vengeance, children of punishment, children of hell. For how is it "by nature," save that through the first man sinning moral evil rooted itself in us as a nature? If evil has so taken root within us, every man is born mentally blind. For if he sees, he has no need of a guide. If he does need one to guide and enlighten him, then is he blind from his birth.

(Tr. xliv. 1, 2) For the blind man here is the human race. Blindness came upon the first man by reason of sin: and from him we all derive it: i. e. man is blind from his birth.

Mystically, our Lord, after being banished from the minds of the Jews, passed over to the Gentiles. (non occ.). The passage or journey here is His descent from heaven to earth, where He saw the blind man, i. e. looked with compassion on the human race.

The Lord manifested in the two preceding chapters that He is the director by the word of wisdom; here He shows the same thing by a miracle of power. For by illuminating corporally He signifies that He illuminates spiritually, and this indeed He does in the present chapter.

The compassion of divine kindness is touched upon in this, that the Lord looked upon the blind man with the eye of mercy; whence he says: Jesus, passing by, saw a man blind from birth: He saw him, I say, with the eye of mercy, according to that passage in Lamentations 1: "See, O Lord, for I am in tribulation." Or: He saw him, that is, "He looked attentively, so that He might give the disciples a sense of looking closely," as Chrysostom says; and on account of this the disciples asked.

We have just heard that Jesus gave sight to the man who was blind from birth. Do you wonder? Jesus is the Savior. He did something in keeping with his name, for by his kindness he restored what he had given to a lesser degree in the womb. Now when he made his eyes less powerful, surely he did not make a mistake, but he deferred it for the miracle.… Behold, why Christ delayed when he made the eyes less powerful in the womb. Do not think that the parents of that blind man had no sin and that the blind man himself, when he was born, did not contract original sin; because of the fact of original sin even very little children are baptized. However, that blindness was not due to the sin of his parents or due to the sin of the blind man, but in order that the glory of God might be made manifest in him. For when we are born we all contract original sin, and still we are not born physically blind. That blind man was prepared as a salve for the human race. He was bodily restored to light, in order that by considering his miracle we might be enlightened in heart.

While the Jews were raging against Him and now essaying to wound Him with stones, forthwith He goes forth of the temple that is among them, and takes Him away from the unholiness of His pursuers. And in passing by, straightway He seeth one blind from his birth, and setteth him as a token and that most clear that He will remove from the abominable behaviour of the Jews, and will leave the multitude of the God-opposers, and will rather visit the Gentiles, and to them transfer the abundance of His Clemency. And He likens them to the blind from his birth by reason of their having been made in error and that they are from their first age as it were bereft of the true knowledge of God, and that they Have not the light from God, i. e., the illumination through the Spirit.

It is meet to observe again what Christ's visiting the blind man as He was passing by, signifies. And it comes to me to think that Christ strictly speaking came not for the Gentiles but for Israel's sake alone (as Himself too somewhere says, I was not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel), yet was the recovery of sight given to the Gentiles, Christ transferring His Mercy to them as by the way, because of the disobedience of Israel. And this it was again which was afore-sung through Moses, I will provoke them to jealousy with not a nation, with a foolish nation will I anger them. For a foolish nation was it which serveth the creature more than Creator and like irrational beasts feeds on just all unlearning, and giveth heed only to things of the earth. But since Israel which was wise by reason of the law and prudent from having Prophets angered [God], it in its turn was angered by God, they who aforetime were not prudent being taken into the place belonging to these, for to them through faith was Christ made wisdom and sanctification and redemption, as it is written, i. e., both light and recovery of sight.

For [they hold] that perfect Nous, previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, was not capable of rendering that production which issued from him perfect, but [could only bring it forth] utterly blind to the knowledge and greatness of the Father. They also maintain that the Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who was blind from his birth, since the Aeon was in this manner produced by Monogenes blind, that is, in ignorance, thus falsely ascribing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their own theory, holds the second [place of] production from the Propator. Admirable sophists, and explorers of the sublimities of the unknown Father, and rehearsers of those super-celestial mysteries "which the angels desire to look into!" -that they may learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of the Father who produced him!

"And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man which was blind from his birth." Being full of love for man, and caring for our salvation, and desiring to stop the mouths of the foolish, He omitteth nothing of His own part, though there be none to give heed. Wherefore here, when they would not receive His sublime sayings, but said that He had a devil, and attempted to kill Him, He went forth from the Temple, and healed the blind, mitigating their rage by His absence, and by working the miracle softening their hardness and cruelty, and establishing His assertions. And He worketh a miracle which was no common one, but one which took place then for the first time. "Since the world began," saith he who was healed, "was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind." Some have, perhaps, opened the eyes of the blind, but of one born blind never. And that on going out of the Temple, He proceeded intentionally to the work, is clear from this; it was He who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to Him; and so earnestly did He look upon him, that even His disciples perceived it.

The Lord departs from the temple in order to somewhat temper the wrath of the Jews. He proceeds to heal the blind man so that by this sign He might soften their hard-heartedness and obstinacy, although they did not profit from it, and at the same time to show them that it was not in vain or out of self-glorification that He said, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58). It is fitting that He Himself approached the blind man, and not the blind man to Him.

1293 After showing the enlightening power of his teaching by his own words, our Lord confirms this by his action, when he gives sight to one physically blind. In regard to this three things are presented: first, the man's infirmity; secondly, his healing (v 6); thirdly, a discussion among the Jews about this health (v 8). In regard to the first he does two things: first, the man's infirmity is mentioned; secondly, we see an inquiry about its cause (v 2).

1294 It should be noted in regard to the first that Jesus hid himself and left the temple, and while passing by he saw this blind man, as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. Three things are considered here. First, he passed by to avoid the anger of the Jews: "Do not kindle the coals of a sinner lest you be burned in his flaming fire" (Sir 8:10). Secondly, he wanted to try and soften their hardness of heart by working a miracle: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (15:24). Thirdly, he went on his way in order to confirm his words by working a sign; for our Lord's works produce faith in the things that he says: "He confirmed the message by the sign that attended it" (Mk 16:20).

In the mystical sense, according to Augustine, this blind man is the human race. Sin is a spiritual blindness: "Their wickedness blinded them" (Wis 2:21). The human race is blind from birth, because it contracted sin from its origin, for the blindness occurs through sin in the first man, from whom all of us draw our origin. We read, "We were by nature," by natural origin, "children of wrath" (Eph 2:3).

There was a certain philosophy among the ancients that troubles came from sin because they were confident that God was not responsible for any evil. The notion that people suffer as an exercise so that they might perceive the power of God at last—this was not well known at all because they would rather have God give good rewards to the just then and there and not prolong suffering any longer for the sake of eternal life. Since he was a blind man from birth, it occurred to the disciples to ask. Since no one can sin before his birth, they ventured a guess that the parents were to blame. For they knew that children may suffer in order to bring grief to the parents. But the Lord said that the blindness did not occur because of any sin but for the sake of the glory of God that was about to take place as the power of God would be revealed through his unexpected recovery of sight.

(Tr. xliv. 1, 2) Rabbi is Master. They call Him Master, because they wished to learn: they put their question to our Lord, as to a Master.

And His disciples asked Him. Here is touched upon the dispensation of divine wisdom, which the disciples, wishing to know, asked Him about: Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind? Supposing that divine wisdom does not inflict punishment without fault, they ask wherein the fault lay. This indeed they had learned from the healing of the paralytic, to whom it was said above in chapter five: "Behold, you are made whole; sin no more, lest something worse befall you." They knew that it was written in Exodus 20: "I am a mighty God, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." And because they intended well but asked poorly, the Lord in His response destroys the question.

From this they seem to imply that children are punished for the sins of their parents. Against this is that passage from Ezekiel 18: "The father shall not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son the iniquity of the father": therefore the son ought not to be punished for the sin of the parents. The contrary of this is stated in Exodus 20: "Visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

It must be said that the punishment of sin is twofold: one temporal, the other eternal. I say that with eternal punishment a son is not punished for the iniquity of the father: whence even if unbaptized infants are deprived of the eternal vision, this is not on account of the sin of the father alone, but their own, because each one has original sin. Concerning temporal punishment, however, it must be understood that the son bears the iniquity of the father; because frequently a wicked father is punished in his son: therefore he says: "Unto the third and fourth generation," because up to that generation parents can see their children. Others say differently, that this is understood of children who imitate the crime of their father, but the first interpretation is better.

That not from sins of the soul prior to birth do bodily sufferings befal any, nor yet does God bring the sins of their fathers upon any, punishing those who have nothing sinned, but brings righteous doom upon all.

Being desirous (and not without good reason) that the mystery should be explained, or rather being Divinely guided, the most wise disciples were urged to ask instruction on the subject. And they are inquisitive with profit, by this means furnishing an advantage not so much for themselves as for us. For we are benefited greatly both by hearing the true explanation of these things from the Omniscient, and in addition also by being warned off from the abomination of effete doctrines. These errors not only used to exist among the Jews, but are also |2 advocated now by some who are insufferably conceited in their knowledge of inspired Scripture and seem to pass for Christians. Such persons of a truth delight too much in their own sophistries, indulging their private fancies, and not fearing to mingle Greek error with the doctrines of the Church. For the Jews, when they were in misery, greatly murmured, as if merely suffering the penalty of their forefathers' impiety, or as if God were most unreasonably laying upon them the sins of their fathers, and scoffed at it as a most unjust punishment; they even said in a proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. And these again, being afflicted with a like and kindred ignorance to those just mentioned by us, earnestly maintain 9 that the souls of men existed and had their being before the creation of their bodies, and that these souls having turned willingly to sin even before the existence of their bodies, then souls and bodies became united, when in the order of chastisement the souls received birth in the flesh. But in one brief statement the follies of both these parties are exposed by Christ, Who confidently affirms that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents. He refutes the doctrine of the Jews by saying that the man had not been born blind on account of any sin either of himself or of his ancestors, no, not even of his father or mother; and he also overthrows the silly nonsense of the others, who say that souls sin before their existence in the body.

For some one will say to them and very reasonably: How, tell me, does Christ say that neither had the blind man sinned nor his parents? And yet we could not grant that they were altogether free from sin. For, inasmuch as they were human, it is I suppose in every way likely or rather it of necessity follows that they fell into errors. Pray then, what time does Christ mean to define as that concerning which His word shall appears to us true, that neither did the man himself sin, nor indeed his parents? |Surely He speaks of that which is previous to birth, when having no existence whatever, they did not sin.

Again, concerning such matters, how truly frivolous and beside the mark it is to think that souls sinned before the existence of their bodies, and on that account were embodied and sent into this world, we have argued at length at the beginning of the present gospel, in interpreting and commenting on the words: That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and it would be superfluous for us to discuss the subject again. But it is necessary to say whence it occurred to the Jews to fall into this opinion and supposition; also to show clearly that from inability to understand the Divine Word, they mistook its proper meaning. Israel once dwelt in tents in the wilderness, and God called His hierophant Moses on Mount Sinai; but when he extended his stay there with God to the number of forty days, he seemed to be a loiterer to those who had influence with the people, who both rose up against Aaron then being alone, and falling back in contempt upon the idolatries of Egypt, cried saying: Make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. Then what followed thereupon I think it necessary to speak of briefly. They made a calf, as it is written, and at this God was justly provoked to anger: then indeed He threatened to destroy the whole congregation at once. Moses fell down before Him and sought for pardon with much entreaty. The Creator of the universe granted forgiveness, and promised to punish the people no further than that He would not continue to go up with them to the land of promise, but would send with them instead His special Angel as it were in the position of leader. At this Moses was sorely grieved, and as God was not willing to go up with the people, he inferred with some likelihood indeed that the Divine anger was not yet thoroughly appeased. So he prayed again earnestly that God would accompany them, |4 knowing that the mere guidance of an Angel would not suffice some of the Israelites, and perhaps also fearing the weakness of the people and therefore deprecating the holy angels' hatred of evil; and he entreated the Good One, the Lover of men, the Supreme King and Lord over all, to be willing rather to be present with those so prone to transgress. For he knew that God would pardon them not once only but many times, and that He would grant mercy to those who should offend. And God also consented to this. Then Moses sought a sign from Him, even that he might see Him, as a full assurance and testimony that He had forgiven them completely: For, said he, if I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me; that I may evidently see Thee, that I may find grace in Thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation is Thy people. This also God granted, as far as it was possible, assuring in every way His own servant both that He had forgiven the people their sin and that He would go up with them to the land of promise. Then, giving as it were a sort of finishing touch to the promises, which seemed wanting, He commands Moses to hew out two other tables for Him, the former ones as we know having been broken in pieces, so that He might write down the Law yet again for the people; even in this affording no small evidence of His kindness towards them. And when Moses was ready also for this, the Lord descended in a child, as it is written, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the Name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before his face and proclaimed: The Lord God is pitiful and merciful, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and true, and keeping justice, and showing mercy unto thousands, taking away iniquities and unrighteousnesses and sins; and He will not clear the guilty; visiting the sins of fathers upon children and upon children's children unto the third and fourth generation.

But now attend carefully, for I am about to take up again the question proposed at first. God declares Himself to show His kindness and His incomparable love of |men in a manner suitable to Deity. For we maintain that these were the words of God, not of any other speaker; not (as some think) the words of the all-wise Moses, offering up laudatory prayers on behalf of the people. For that it is the Lord of all Himself speaking these things of Himself, no other than the blessed Moses himself will bear witness to us, teaching in the Book of Numbers, when the Israelites had again taken offence from unseasonable cowardice, because some, who by Moses at God's command had been sent to spy it out, spake evil of the Land of Promise. For when they returned from the land of the strangers and were come again to their own people, they spat out bitter words concerning it. Affirming the land to be so wild and rugged that it was capable of eating up its inhabitants, they excited so much hatred of it in the minds of their hearers, that bursting into tears they now desired again to be in Egypt with all its hardships. For, Let us make, said they, captains, and let us journey into Egypt. And when God threatened to destroy them, Moses again prayed, and all but reminding Him also of the promise He had given, went on to cry: And now let Thy strength be exalted, O Lord, according as Thou hast spoken, saying, The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and iniquities and sins; and He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. Forgive this people their sin according to Thy great mercy, as Thou hast been favourable to them from Egypt even until now. It appears therefore that He Who is God over all attributes to Himself love of men and the greatest forbearance towards evil. It will be fitting in the next place to set forth the cause on account of which the Jews, being deceived, could suppose our good God to be mindful of injury and exceeding wrathful.

For my part, I do not think them able to lay hold of the Divine Oracles in any way, or to cavil at them as if they have not expressed what is most excellent or have |6 strayed far from the law of fairness. On the other hand, I think that they only indulge their own ignorance in this matter, to suppose the sins of fathers to be really brought upon children, and the Divine anger to be stretched so far that it may even reach to the third and fourth generation, exacting unjustly from innocent persons the penalties of others' crimes. Would it not at all events be more becoming to them, if they were wise, to hold the opinion that the Source of righteousness and of our moral laws would do nothing so shameful? For even men inflict punishments according to the laws upon habitual transgressors, but by no means visit them on their children, unless perchance they are detected as partners and associates in the misdeeds: and as to Him Who prescribed to us the laws of all justice, how can He be detected in inflicting penalties such as among ourselves are greatly condemned? Then this also in addition is to be considered. By the mouth of Moses He published laws innumerable, and in many cases those living in bad habits were ordered to be punished, but nowhere is a command from Him to be found, that children should share the penalties incurred by their sinning fathers. For penalty is for those who are detected in crime, and it was ordained that it was fitting to punish those only who were obnoxious to the law. To think as the Jews do is therefore surely impious, but it is certainly the part of a wise man to investigate the Divine mind and by every means to observe what things are agreeable to Nature, the queen of all things. Rightly therefore let us hold that the God of the universe, setting as it were before Him His inherent clemency, willing to be admired for His pure love of men and to this end proclaiming: The Lord is longsuffering and of great mercy and true, forgiving transgressions and sins, would not wish to be known as so mindful of evil that He extends His anger even to the fourth generation inclusive. For how can He still be longsuffering and of great mercy, or how does He forgive transgressions and sins, Who cannot endure to limit the infliction of penalty to the person |7 of the sinner, but extends it beyond the third generation, and like a sort of thunderbolt assaults even the innocent? Surely then it is quite incredible and of almost utter folly, to suppose that God attributes to Himself, together with love of men and gentleness, anger so lasting and so unreasonable.

To these things another may be added by those who support the Jewish opinion, and do not allow that God knows a suitable time for every kind of action. For if He promises longsuffering and is found to yield very easily in laying aside His anger, why is He seen to have added: Visiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation? Of course this was done for no other reason than a wish to frighten those who expect remission of sins from Him, as showing that the object of their hopes should never be realized, since He Who with reason is grieved with them is so mindful of evil and tenacious in anger.

But further, tell me what the hierophant Moses himself indicates to us. Would he not seem to do a thing most opposite to all reason, if, when Israel had given offence and was about to suffer punishment, he proceeded to pray for them, and, while asking for oblivion of the offence and an exhibition of God's love for men, he should unseasonably say to God: Thou art of such a nature that Thou requitest the sins of fathers upon children's children? For this would be rather the way of one instigating to anger than of one calling for mercy, and of one asking mindfulness of injury rather than longsuffering. But in my opinion by these words he seemed to importune God and to recall to His memory almost the very words which He Himself uttered, when He publicly proclaimed His inherent goodness. For in what way He is longsuffering and of great mercy, and how He is by nature One Who takes away sins and transgressions, will be most excellently discerned, in the very dealings wherein He seems to be somewhat bitter.

In the next place then I think it is fitting to set forth |8 in what way we may rightly understand the words which were spoken by God. The Lord, He says, is long suffering and of great mercy, taking away transgressions and sins. Then we will read that which immediately follows as if with a note of interrogation:. And will He not surely clear the guilty? So that thou mayest understand something of this sort: Will not, says He, the longsuffering and greatly merciful God, Who takes away transgressions and sins, will He not surely clear the guilty? Of course it is not to be doubted: certainly He will thoroughly purge him. For how is He longsuffering and of great mercy and how does He at all take away sins, unless He purges the guilty? At these words He goes off to a demonstration of His inherent longsuffering and forbearance, even that He will visit the sins of the fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation: not chastising the son for the father; do not think this: nay, not even does He lay upon a descendant the faults of his ancestors like a burden: but meaning something of this sort. There was (we will suppose) a certain man, a transgressor of laws, having his mind full of all wickedness, and who, being taken in this manner of lining, deserved to be punished without any respite; but yet God in forbearance dealt with him patiently, not bringing upon him the wrath he had merited. Then to him was born a son, a rival of his father in impious deeds and outdoing his parent in villainy: God also showed longsuffering towards this man. But from him is born a third, and from the third a fourth, in no way inferior to their progenitors in wickedness, but practising equal impiety with them. Then God pours out wrath upon them, already even from the beginning deserved by the whole race, after He has tolerated as much as and even more than it behoved Him. A postponement of vengeance even unto the fourth generation, how is it not truly a commendation of Divine gentleness? For that He is wont to chastise neither son for father nor father for son, it is not hard to learn from those words which by the voice of the prophet Ezekiel He clearly spake to the Jews |9 themselves, when over this same thing they murmured and said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. And, says he, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, what mean ye by this proverb in Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord, this proverb shall be said no more in Israel. For all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son; they are mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son: each in his own iniquity in which he hath sinned, in that shall he die. But I suppose no one is so foolish as to think that God did not at the beginning legislate in the most excellent way, but somehow changed His plans and altered His ideas for the better, and like one of ourselves was with difficulty and after subsequent deliberation able to improve His legislation to what was most fitting. In such a case, if we praise the earlier laws we shall clearly be blaming the later, and if we express an opinion that the later laws are superior we shall condemn the earlier by our lower estimation of them. God too will legislate in opposition to Himself, and will have fallen short, as we may have done, of a perfect standard, by ordaining one thing at one time and a different thing at another time. But I suppose every one will say that the Divine Nature cannot be in any way subject to such inconsistencies as this, and could not even have ever fallen short of absolute perfection.

It is then as a demonstration of His incomparable munificence that He alleges the words quoted above, viz:----Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation. For that the merciful God is wont to punish sinners not immediately, but rather to do it reluctantly and to put off punishments for long seasons, thou wilt understand from His own words: And I was full of Mine anger and restrained it, and: did not make a full end of them. And again in another place: For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Thou seest that He was indeed full of anger, for some were perpetrating deeds deserving fulness of anger, but as God He forbore patiently and delayed to make a full end of those who offended Him. But in order that we may exhibit to thee as in a picture the proof of what we have said and from actual events demonstrate the praise of God's love for men to be contained in this text, I will bring forward something recorded in the Sacred Books, and will endeavour from the Divine Scripture itself to show the sins of fathers visited on children even to the third and fourth generation; not unjustly, but justly, and in a manner merited by the sufferers themselves. The story shall be summarized, because of the length of the narrative.

Well then, in the First Book of Kings we read that after other kings Ahab reigned over Israel, and burning with a most unrighteous desire for another man's vineyard, he slew the lord of it, even Naboth. For although he did not himself command that deed, yet he expressed no anger at the wickedness of his wife. At this God was of course wroth, and spake to Ahab by Elijah the prophet: Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast killed and also taken possession, therefore thus saith the Lord, In the place where the swine and the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there shall the dogs lick thy blood; and the harlots shall wash themselves in thy blood. And again immediately: Thus saith the Lord, Behold I bring evil upon thee, and will kindle a fire behind thee, and will utterly destroy from Ahab every male and him that is shut up and left in Israel. And I will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahab, for the provocations wherewith thou hast provoked Me to anger and made Israel to sin. And of Jezebel he spake, saying, The dogs shall eat her within the outer-wall of Jezreel. And him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat, and him that dieth in the field shall the birds of the air eat. When the Lord of all unmistakably threatened to do all these things and to inflict them, Ahab rent his garment and entered into his house; as it is written, He was pricked to the heart, and burst bitterly into tears, and girded his loins with sackcloth. In which state God pities him, and begins to allay His anger, and putting as it were a bridle to His sudden fury says to the Prophet: Hast thou seen how Ahab was pricked to the heart before Me? I will not bring these things in his days, but in his son's days I will bring the evil. Will it not therefore be right to inquire upon whom these things were fulfilled? Well, the son of Ahab was Ahaziah, Who, Scripture says, did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of his father Ahab, and in the way of Jezebel his mother. Then the son of Ahaziah was, Scripture says, Joram, of whom again it is written that he walked in the sins of the house of Jeroboam. Next to Joram reigned a third Ahaziah, of whom again the language of the narrative says that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab. But when the time had now come for punishing the house of Ahab, which had not ceased from impiety towards God even to the fourth generation, there was anointed to be the next king over Israel Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi, who slew Ahaziah, and beside him Jezebel; he slew also seventy other sons of Ahab, carrying out as it were the Divine wrath to the uttermost, so that he obtained both honour and favour on account of it. For what saith God to him? Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in Mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit upon thy throne. Thou seest therefore that He reluctantly punished in the fourth generation the wicked descendants of wicked men, whereas to him from whom He received honour He extends His mercy even to the fourth generation. Cease therefore, O Jew, to accuse the righteousness of God. As a form of encomium certainly we will accept that saying: Requiting the sins of fathers upon children unto the third and fourth generation.

"Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" A mistaken question, for how could he sin before he was born? and how, if his parents had sinned, would he have been punished? Whence then came they to put this question? Before, when He healed the paralytic, He said, "Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more." They therefore, having understood that he was palsied on account of sin, said, "Well, that other was palsied because of his sins; but concerning this man, what wouldest Thou say? hath he sinned? It is not possible to say so, for he is blind from his birth. Have his parents sinned? Neither can one say this, for the child suffers not punishment for the father." As therefore when we see a child evil entreated, we exclaim, "What can one say of this? what has the child done?" not as asking a question, but as being perplexed, so the disciples spake here, not so much asking for information, as being in perplexity.

Yet in the beginning of the world men lived long, and had no diseases. But when through carelessness they neglected the observation of the proper times, then the sons in succession cohabiting through ignorance at times when they ought not, place their children under innumerable afflictions. Whence our Teacher, when we inquired of Him in regard to the man who was blind from his birth, and recovered his sight, if this man sinned, or his parents, that he should be born blind, answered, 'Neither did he sin at all, nor his parents, but that the power of God might be made manifest through him in healing the sins of ignorance.'

The disciples, having noticed His attention to the blind man, ask: "Who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind?" This question seems strange. For how could he have sinned before his birth? The apostles probably did not share the pagan superstition that the soul, before its union with the body, lives in another world and descends into the body as a punishment for sin. Being fishermen, they could not have heard any such thing, for such ideas belonged to the philosophers. So, the question seems unreasonable, but not to one who is attentive. For know this: the Apostles had heard Christ say to the paralytic, "Behold, you have been made well; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you" (Jn. 5:14). Now they see the blind man and are perplexed, and they speak as if to say, "Let us grant that the paralytic was afflicted for his sins, but what will You say about this man? Did he sin? But this cannot be said, because he has been blind from birth. Or did his parents sin? Neither can this be said, because a son is not punished for his father." So then, the Apostles in the present case are not so much asking as they are expressing perplexity.

This question does not seem a proper one. For the Apostles had not been taught the fond notion of the Gentiles, that the soul has sinned in a previous state of existence. It is difficult to account for their putting it.

1295 Then (v2), the cause of this man's infirmity is discussed: first, the disciples ask about its cause; secondly, Christ explains it.

1296 In regard to the first, three things are to be considered. The first is the reason for the disciples questioning Christ. According to Chrysostom, this was because Jesus, leaving the temple and seeing this blind man, looked at him intently, as though seeing in him an opportunity to manifest his power. And so the disciples seeing him look so intently at the blind man were impelled to question him.

Secondly, we see the seriousness of the disciples, because they say, Rabbi, calling him Teacher, to indicate that they are questioning him in order to learn. Thirdly, we see why they asked, who sinned? when they inquire into the reason for the man's blindness.

It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that because the Lord said to the paralytic, when he healed him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you," the disciples thought that his infirmity was due to sin. They also thought that every human illness arose from sin, as Eliphaz said: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished?" (Jb 4:7). Therefore, they asked whether he had been born blind on account of his own sin or that of his parents. It does not seem to have been on account of his own sin, because no one sins before he is born, since souls do not exist before their bodies, nor do they sin, as some mistakenly think: "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing, either good or bad — not because of works but because of his call, she was told 'The elder will served the younger'" (Rom 9:11). Nor does it seem that he suffered on account of a sin of his parents, for we read: "The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16).

Note that people are punished with two kinds of punishment. One is spiritual and concerns the soul; the other is bodily and concerns the body. A child is never punished on account of his father with a spiritual punishment, because the soul of a child is not from his father but from God: "All souls are mine," that is, by creation, "the soul of the father as well as the soul of the child is mine: the soul that sins shall be punished" [Ez 18:4]. Augustine also says this in one of his letters. But a child is punished on account of his father with a bodily punishment, since he is of his father as far as his body is concerned. This is expressly shown in Genesis (c 19) where when Sodom was destroyed the children of the inhabitants of Sodom were killed on account of the sins of their parents. Again, the Lord very often threatened to destroy the children of the Jews on account of the sins of their parents.

1297 To understand why one person is punished on account of the sins of another, we must realize that a punishment has two aspects: it is an injury and a remedy. Sometimes a part of the body is cut off to save the entire body. And a punishment of this kind causes an injury insofar as a part is cut off, but it is a remedy insofar as it saves the body itself. Still, a doctor never cuts off a superior member to save one which is inferior, but the other way around. Now in human matters, the soul is superior to the body, and the body is superior to external possessions. And so it never happens that someone is punished in his soul for the sake of his body, but rather he is punished in his body as a curing remedy for his soul. Therefore, God sometimes imposes physical punishments, or difficulties in external concerns, as a beneficial remedy for the soul. And then punishments of this kind are not given just as injuries, but as healing remedies. Thus, the killing of the children of Sodom was for the good of their souls: not because they deserved it, but so they would not be punished more severely for increasing their sins in a life spent in imitating their parents. And in this way some are often punished for the sins of their parents.

He spat on the ground and made mud out of the saliva and he daubed the mud onto the eyes of the blind man. He wanted to show with the mud that he himself is the one who made Adam from the earth. His statement that "I am the one doing this" seemed to make his hearer hostile to him. But have shown himself to be the one through this work that he did—this, finally, did not give offense. Therefore, he fashioned eyes in that way rather than simply healing them. And he did not only make the eyes or open them but also graced them with the ability to see. This is positive proof that he had also breathed a soul into Adam. For he would never have seen, even if the eye had been completed, unless that life-giving spirit that breathed into Adam was at work.

The Lord came: what did He do? He set forth a great mystery. "He spat on the ground," He made clay of His spittle; for the Word was made flesh. "And He anointed the eyes of the blind man." The anointing had taken place, and yet he saw not.

Our Lord spat upon the ground, and made clay of the spittle, because He was the Word made flesh. The man did not see immediately as he was anointed; i. e. was, as it were, only made a catechumen.

When he had said these things. Here is touched upon the wondrous operation of divine power, in that by spittle and opaque mud he restores light by his command alone. Therefore he says: When he had said these things, namely those things which were said before; he spat on the ground and made clay from the spittle and anointed the clay upon his eyes: he made as it were an eye-salve for healing the eyes; Revelation three: "Anoint your eyes with eye-salve, that you may see."

According to the allegory: saliva or spittle, which proceeds from the mouth, which is also salty, signifies the wisdom of God, of which Ecclesiasticus 24: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn." The earth signifies the flesh of the Virgin: the Psalm: "Our earth shall yield its fruit." Spittle is joined to earth when the Son of God is born from the Virgin, and clay is made, since the Word was made flesh, and this for our restoration, according to Augustine: "Just as God formed man from the slime of the earth, so through the same kind of clay He restored the human race." With this clay our eyes are anointed, when those believing in Christ are illuminated by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, concerning which, First John 2: "The anointing will teach you concerning all things." And we are washed in the waters of Siloam, that is, of Sacred Scripture, which flow with silence, because they are not painted or colored by the clamor of the words of worldly philosophy, and they rest in the humble and descend from the mountains; Isaiah 8: "The waters of Siloam, which flow with silence."

According to the moral sense: to spit is to declare outwardly the foulness of sin, lest perhaps it fester; the Psalm: "My wounds have putrefied and festered because of my foolishness"; and Proverbs 28: "He who hides his crimes shall not prosper; but he who confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy." To anoint the eyes with clay is to consider one's sins frequently; Jeremiah 31: "Set up for yourself a watchtower, lay upon yourself bitternesses"; Isaiah 38: "I will recount to You all my years in the bitterness of my soul." To be washed, through tears: the Psalm: "I will wash my bed every night; I will water my couch with my tears"; and Isaiah 1: "Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your thoughts from before My eyes; cease to act perversely."

Here the manner of the cure is asked about: Since the Lord healed others by command alone, why is it that he does this with clay? And why does he command him to wash? It must be said that the reason was allegorical and moral, as was said above, for the instruction of our knowledge and action; there was also a literal reason. For since by just judgment at his coming both the blind were to be enlightened and the Pharisees were to be blinded, he made clay, by which he would seem to violate the Sabbath, and through this the filthy one would become more filthy, and from this the blind man himself would be enlightened and purified. He sent him to the pool so that the miracle would be public, as Chrysostom says; because all gathered for so great a spectacle, that by clay, from which others are blinded, the blind man is enlightened.

In the ground we understand the law, and grace is designated in the saliva. What does the law effect without grace? What does the ground do without the saliva of Christ? What does the law do without grace, except make people still more guilty? Why? Because the law knows how to obey but not how to help; the law can point out sin, but it cannot take sin away from people. Therefore, let the saliva of Christ go down to the ground and gather together the earth. Let he who made the earth remake it, and he who created it reform and recreate it. Likewise, in the saliva is understood the word of God, his real human body on earth. For this reason let the saliva of Christ down in order that the law may be fulfilled. "He made clay with the saliva." What is saliva mixed with clay, except the incarnate Word? That blind man presented an image of the whole human race, and, therefore, the saliva was mixed with clay, and the blind man was made to see: the Word became incarnate, and the world was illumined.

Accepting the cure wrought upon this blind man as a type of the calling of the Gentiles, we will again tell the meaning of the mystery, summing it up in few words. First then because it was merely in passing, and after leaving the Jewish temple, that He saw the blind man: and again from this circumstance also, that without in-treaty and no man soliciting Him, but rather of His own accord and from a spontaneous inclination, the Saviour came to a determination to heal the man; hence we shall profitably look upon the miracle as symbolical. It shows that as no intreaty has been made by the multitude of the Gentiles, for they were all in error, God, being indeed in His nature good, of His own will has come forward to show mercy unto them. For how at all or in what way could the vast number of Greeks and of Gentiles beseech God for mercy, having their mind darkened by gross ignorance, so as to be in no wise able to see the Illuminator? As therefore certainly the man who has been healed, being blind, does not know Jesus, and by an act of mercy and philanthropy receives an unhoped-for benefit; so also has it happened to the Gentiles through Christ. On the sabbath too was the work of healing accomplished, the sabbath being capable thereby completely to exhibit to us a type of the last age of the present world, in which the Saviour has made light to shine on the Gentiles. For the sabbath is the end of the week, and the Only-Begotten took up His abode and was manifested to us all in the last time, and in the concluding ages of the world. But at the manner of the healing it is really fit that we should be astonished and say: O Lord, how great are Thy works; in wisdom hast Thou performed them all.

For some one perhaps will say: Why, although able to set all things right easily by a word, does He mix up clay from the spittle, and anoint the eyes of the sufferer, and seem to prescribe a sort of operation; for He says, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam? Surely I deem that some deep meaning is buried beneath these words, for the Saviour accomplishes nothing without a purpose. For by anointing with the clay He makes good that which is (so to speak) lacking or vitiated in the nature of the eye, and thus shows that He is the One Who formed us in the beginning, the Creator and Fashioner of the universe. And the power of the action possesses a sort of mystical significance; for that which we said just now with reference to this, and what we consider may be understood by it, we will mention again. It was not otherwise possible for the Gentiles to thrust off the blindness which affected them, and to behold the Divine and holy light, that is, to receive the knowledge of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, except by being made partakers of His Holy Body, and washing away their gloom-producing sin, and renouncing the authority of the devil, namely in Holy Baptism. And when the Saviour stamped on the blind man the typical mark which was anticipative of the mystery, He meanwhile fully exhibited the power of such participation by the anointing with His spittle. And as an image of Holy Baptism He commands the man to run and wash in Siloam, a name whose interpretation, the Evangelist, being very wise and Divinely-inspired, felt it necessary to give. For we conclude that the One Sent is no other than God the Only-Begotten, visiting us and sent from above, even from the Father, to destroy sin and the rapacity of the devil: and recognising Him as floating invisibly on the waters of the sacred pool, we by faith are washed, not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as it is written, but as it were washing away a sort of defilement and uncleanness of the eyes of the understanding, in order that for tho future, being purified, we may be able in pureness to behold the Divine beauty. As therefore we believe the Body of Christ to be life-giving, since it is the temple and abode of the Word of the Living God, possessing all His energy, so we declare it to be also a Patron of light; for it is the Body of Him Who is by nature the True Light. And as, when He raised from death the only son of the widow, He was not satisfied with merely commanding and saying: Young man, I say unto thee, Arise; although accustomed to accomplish all things, whatsoever He wished, by a word; but also touched the bier with His hand, showing that even His Body possesses a life-giving power: so in this case He anoints with His spittle, teaching that His Body is also a Patron of light, even by so slight a touch. For it is the Body of the True Light, as we said above. The blind man accordingly departs with what haste he can, and washes, and without delay performs all that was bidden him, showing as it were in his own person the ready obedience of the Gentiles, concerning whom it is written: He inclined His ear to the preparation of their hearts. The wretched Jews then were hard of heart, but they of the Gentiles were altogether docile in obedience and bear witness of it in experience. The man having forthwith, removed his blindness, washing it away together with the clay, now returns, seeing. For it was Christ's pleasure that thus it should come to pass. Excellent therefore is faith, which makes God-given grace to be |21 strong in us; and harmful is hesitation. For the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, as it is written, and shall receive nothing whatever from the Lord.

(viii. Moral. c. xxx. [49.]) Or thus: By His spittle understand the savour of inward contemplation. It runs down from the head into the mouth, and gives us the taste of revelation from the Divine splendour even in this life. The mixture of His spittle with clay is the mixture of supernatural grace, even the contemplation of Himself with our carnal knowledge, to the soul's enlightenment, and restoration of the human understanding from its original blindness.

And for this reason did the Lord most plainly manifest Himself and the Father to His disciples, lest, forsooth, they might seek after another God besides Him who formed man, and who gave him the breath of life; and that men might not rise to such a pitch of madness as to feign another Father above the Creator. And thus also He healed by a word all the others who were in a weakly condition because of sin; to whom also He said, "Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee:" pointing out by this, that, because of the sin of disobedience, infirmities have come upon men. To that man, however, who had been blind from his birth, He gave sight, not by means of a word, but by an outward action; doing this not without a purpose, or because it so happened, but that He might show forth the hand of God, that which at the beginning had moulded man. And therefore, when His disciples asked Him for what cause the man had been born blind, whether for his own or his parents' fault, He replied, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." Now the work of God is the fashioning of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by a kind of process: "And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed man." Wherefore also the Lord spat on the ground and made clay, and smeared it upon the eyes, pointing out the original fashioning [of man], how it was effected, and manifesting the hand of God to those who can understand by what [hand] man was formed out of the dust. For that which the artificer, the Word, had omitted to form in the womb, [viz., the blind man's eyes], He then supplied in public, that the works of God might be manifested in him, in order that we might not be seeking out another hand by which man was fashioned, nor another Father; knowing that this hand of God which formed us at the beginning, and which does form us in the womb, has in the last times sought us out who were lost, winning back His own, and taking up the lost sheep upon His shoulders, and with joy restoring it to the fold of life.

Those who intend to gain any advantage from what they read, must not pass by even any small portion of the words; and on this account we are bidden to "search" the Scriptures, because most of the words, although at first sight easy, appear to have in their depth much hidden meaning. For observe of what sort is the present case. "Having said these words," It saith," He spat on the ground." What words? "That the glory of God should be made manifest," and that, "I must work the works of Him that sent Me." For not without a cause hath the Evangelist mentioned to us His words, and added that, "He spat," but to show that He confirmed His words by deeds. And why used He not water instead of spittle for the clay? He was about to send the man to Siloam: in order therefore that nothing might be ascribed to the fountain, but that thou mightest learn that the power proceeding from His mouth, the same both formed and opened the man's eyes, He "spat on the ground"; this at least the Evangelist signified, when he said, "And made clay of the spittle." Then, that the successful issue might not seem to be of the earth, He bade him wash. But wherefore did He not this at once, instead of sending him to Siloam? That thou mayest learn the faith of the blind man, and that the obstinacy of the Jews might be silenced: for it was probable that they would all see him as he departed, having the clay spread upon his eyes, since by the strangeness of the thing he would attract to himself all, both those who did and those who did not know him, and they would observe him exactly. And because it is not easy to recognize a blind man who hath recovered sight, He first maketh by the length of way many to be witnesses, and by the strangeness of the spectacle exact observers, that being more attentive they may no longer be able to say, "It is he: it is not he." Moreover, by sending him to Siloam, He desireth to prove that He is not estranged from the Law and the Old (Covenant), nor could it afterwards be feared that Siloam would receive the glory, since many who had often washed their eyes there gained no such benefit; for there also it was the power of Christ that wrought all. On which account the Evangelist addeth for us the interpretation of the name; for having said, "in Siloam," he addeth, "Which is, Sent." That thou mayest learn that there also it was Christ who healed him. As Paul saith, "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. x. 4.) As then Christ was the spiritual Rock, so also was He the spiritual Siloam. To me also the sudden coming in of the water seems to hint an ineffable mystery. What is that? The unlooked for (nature) of His appearance, beyond all expectation.

But observe the mind of the blind man, obedient in everything. He said not, "If it is really the clay or the spittle which gives me eyes, what need of Siloam? Or if there be need of Siloam, what need of the clay? Why did he anoint me? Why bid me wash?" But he entertained no such thoughts, he held himself prepared for one thing only, to obey in all things Him who gave the command, and nothing that was done offended him. If any one ask, "How then did he recover his sight, when he had removed the clay?" he will hear no other answer from us than that we know not the manner. And what wonder if we know it not, since not even the Evangelist knew, nor the very man that was healed? What had been done he knew, but the manner of doing it he could not comprehend. So when he was asked he said, that "He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see"; but how this took place he cannot tell them, though they ask ten thousand times.

I think this has been said to establish that Christ's saliva had a quality of healing power. Even though the blind man did not himself ask to receive his sight, yet he will be found praiseworthy in delivering himself to Jesus anointing his eyes with clay and in doing without hesitation what had been enjoined him, without Jesus having even said that he would receive sight.… Let us therefore wash off the clay smeared in our eyes in the water of the pool of him [i.e., Jesus] who has been sent so that after this we may be able to see again. But you will understand by the clay the beginning of the rudiments of the oracles of God, according to which we as babies are fed with milk. But when the childish things are done away with and we eat solid food, we wipe away the clay so that we may return to Jesus as one who sees.

Having said this, Jesus did not stop at words alone, but joined action to them as well. "He spat on the ground, made clay from the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay," showing through the clay that it was He who also formed Adam's body from clay. Words alone — that it was I who created Adam — might have seemed scandalous to the hearers, but when words are confirmed by deed, there remained no further cause for scandal. He fashions eyes from clay, employing the same mode of creation by which He also created Adam. He not only fashioned the eyes and opened them, but endowed them with sight, and this showed that He also breathed the soul into Adam. For without the activity of the soul, the eye would never see, even if it were properly formed. He also used spittle for the bestowal of sight. Since He intended to send the blind man to Siloam, lest they attribute the miracle to the water of the pool, but rather recognize that it was the power proceeding from His mouth that formed the blind man's eyes and opened them — for this reason He spat on the ground and from the spittle of His mouth made clay. Then, lest you think that the miracle depended on the earth, He commands him to wash, so that the clay might come off entirely. However, some say that the clay did not come off at all, but was transformed into eyes.

Some think that the clay was not laid upon the eyes, but made into eyes.

1309 Next, when the Evangelist says, as he said this, he spat on the ground, he describes the healing of the blind man. Here five things were done by Christ. First, he moistens the earth, he spat on the ground. Secondly, he made the clay, as we read, he made clay of the spittle. Thirdly, Christ smeared the man's eyes and anointed the man's eyes. Fourthly, he commands the man to wash, with go, wash in the pool of Siloam. And fifthly, the man's sight is restored, and he came back seeing. Each of these has both a literal and a mystical explanation.

1310 The literal meaning is explained by Chrysostom in this way. Christ restored the man's sight by spittle in order to show that he accomplished this by a power coming from himself, and that the miracle should not be attributed to anything else: "Power came forth from him" (Lk 6:19). Although our Lord could have performed all his miracles by his mere word, because "he commanded and they were created" (Ps 148:5), he frequently used his body in them to show that as an instrument of his divinity it held a definite healing power. He made clay from his spittle to show that he who had formed the entire first man can reshape the deficient members of a man. Thus, just as he formed the first man from clay, so he made clay to re-form the eyes of the one born blind.

He rubbed the clay on the eyes of the one born blind to show, by healing what is most important in bodies, that he was the creator of bodies. For man is more excellent than all other bodily substances; and among his members, the head is the more excellent; and among the organs of the head, the eye is more excellent than the others: "The eye is the lamp of the body" (Mt 6:22). Therefore, by repairing the eye, which is more excellent than the other bodily members, he showed that he was the creator of the entire man and of all corporeal nature. He said, go, wash in the pool of Siloam, so that it would not seem that the clay he rubbed on the eyes had the power to heal them. Thus, as long as he had the clay on his eyes, the man did not see, but saw only after he washed.

He sent him some distance to wash, to the pool of Siloam, first, to overcome the obstinacy of the Jews. For he had to cross the city, and so all would see the blind man going with the clay on his eyes, and then returning with his sight restored. Secondly, he did this to acclaim the obedience and faith of the blind man; for perhaps he had frequently had clay put on his face, and had often washed in the pool of Siloam, and yet had not seen. So he could have said: "Clay usually makes me worse, and I have often washed in the pool but was never helped," as we read of Naaman in 2 Kings (5:10). Yet he did not argue, but simply obeyed. Thus it follows, so he went and washed. The reason why he sent him to the pool of Siloam was because the Jewish people were signified by that water: "Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently" (Is 8:6) Therefore, he sent him to Siloam to show that he still loved the Jewish people.

The effect follows, because he came back seeing. This was predicted in Isaiah (35:5): "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened."

1311 Augustine gives the mystical and allegorical explanation. He says that the spittle, which is saliva that descends from the head, signifies the Word of God, who proceeds from the Father, the head of all things: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High" (Sir 24:3). Therefore, the Lord made clay from spittle and the earth when the Word was made flesh. He anointed the eyes of the blind man, that is, of the human race. And the eyes are the eyes of the heart, anointed by faith in the incarnation of Christ. But the blind man did not yet see, because the anointing produced a catechumen, who has faith but has not yet been baptized. So he sends him to the pool of Siloam to wash and receive his sight, i.e., to be baptized, and in baptism to receive full enlightenment. Thus, according to Dionysius, baptism is an enlightenment: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness" (Ezek 36:25). And so this Gospel is appropriately read in Lent, on Holy Saturday, when those about to be baptized are examined. Nor is it without reason that the Evangelist adds the meaning of the pool, saying, which means Sent, because whoever is baptized must be baptized in Christ, who was sent by the Father: "As many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). For if Christ had not been sent, none of us would have been freed from sin.

According to Gregory, however, the spittle signifies the savor of intimate contemplation, which flows from the head into the mouth, because due to the love of our Creator we have been touched even in this life with the savor of revelation. Thus the Lord mixed spittle with earth and restored sight to the man born with his contemplation, and heals our understanding from its original blindness.

"The neighbors therefore, and those who saw him previously, for he was a beggar, said, Is not this he who sat and begged? Some said, It is he: others, No; but he is like him." The opening of his eyes had altered his countenance. "He said, I am he." His voice utters its gratitude, that it might not be condemned as ungrateful.

The doubt of the neighbors is introduced, who out of wonder at the change in his sight are uncertain whether they recognize the illuminated man; therefore he says: Therefore the neighbors, and those who had seen him before, because he was a beggar, as the blind are accustomed to beg — such wretched and contemptible and poor persons the kind and humble Lord especially used to heal; whence, similarly, Luke 18: "A certain blind man sat by the wayside begging"; "standing still, Jesus" — it is said there that He illuminated him. Those, therefore, who were accustomed to seeing him said: Is not this he who sat and begged? They said this in doubt, and in this doubt they disagreed; whence he says: Some said: This is he, considering the figure of his body.

The strangeness of what had been brought to pass led them even to unbelief, though so much had been contrived that they might not disbelieve. They said, "Is not this he that sat and begged?" O the lovingkindness of God! Whither did He descend, when with great kindness He healed even beggars, and so silenced the Jews, because He deemed not the illustrious, nor the distinguished, nor the rulers, but men of no mark to be fit objects of the same Providence. For He came for the salvation of all.

And what happened in the case of the paralytic, happened also with this man, for neither did the one or the other know who it was that healed him. And this was caused by the retirement of Christ, for Jesus when He healed always retired, that all suspicion might be removed from the miracles. Since how could they who knew not who He was flatter Him, or join in contriving what had been done? Neither was this man one of those who went about, but of those who sat at the doors of the Temple. Now when all were doubting concerning him, what saith he? "I am he." He was not ashamed of his former blindness, nor did he fear the wrath of the people, nor did he decline showing himself that he might proclaim his Benefactor.

After having gone and washed, he encountered grace. And yet his neighbors and those who were with him when he was begging did not all come to the same conclusion about him. There were some who said that he was indeed the blind man, but others, because of the miracle that had happened to him, said it was not him but someone like him. He, however, says that it is him, not because the event itself compelled him to but because he was eager to proclaim before everyone what had happened.

The neighbors, struck by the extraordinariness of the miracle, did not believe. Although his procession to Siloam with eyes anointed with clay was for the very purpose that many would see him and afterwards would not deny it by claiming ignorance, nevertheless, even now they do not believe. The Evangelist does not remark without purpose that he was asking for alms, but to show the ineffable love of the Lord for mankind in that He condescended even to the poor, that He healed even beggars with great care, and from this we too would learn not to despise our lesser brethren.

1312 After the description of the miraculous healing of the blind man, the Evangelist tells of the miracle being examined. First, the miracle is examined by the people; secondly, by the Pharisees (v 13); and thirdly, on account of his confession the blind man is instructed and commended by Christ (v 35). In regard to the first, the Evangelist mentions three things: first, we see an inquiry about the person who received his sight; secondly, about the restoration itself (v 10); and thirdly about the one who restored his sight (v 12). In regard to the first he does three things: first, we have a question about the one who received his sight; secondly, the different opinions about this are given; thirdly, the question is settled.

1313 The question is asked by the people. He says, the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar said: Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? Here two things are to be considered. One is that due to the greatness of the miracle, it was considered incredible. So we read below: "Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind" (9:32). This fulfills for them what is said in Habakkuk (1:5), "I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told." Secondly, we should note the wonderful compassion of God, because our Lord performs miracles not only for the powerful, but also for outcasts, since he healed, with great pity, those who begged. This shows that he who came for our salvation rejected no one because of their poverty: "Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?" (Jas 2:5). Thus they explicitly say, Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? This is like saying: He is an outcast and does not deserve to be cured. But Baruch says the opposite: "The giants who were born there—God did not choose them" (3:26).

(Tr. xliv. 8) His eyes being opened had altered his look. But he said, I am he. He spoke gratefully; a denial would have convicted Him of ingratitude.

But others said: By no means, but he is like him, considering the change in his sight, they believe him to be another, but similar.

But he said: I am he, namely the one who begged as a blind man. Augustine: "A grateful voice, lest the ungrateful one be condemned." The blind man was not ashamed to confess that he had been blind, for the glory of God; whence Ecclesiasticus 4: "There is a shame that brings death," which namely diminishes the glory of God on account of our own; "and there is a shame that brings glory and grace," and which diminishes our glory and manifests disgrace for the manifesting of divine glory.

Hard indeed to be believed are such surpassing wonders, and that [which exceeds man's experience], from whatever source it comes, finds the intellect to be intolerant of it, and is scarcely treated with honour when convincingly forced upon people's minds. For the attempt to investigate what is beyond the grasp of reason indicates a state of mind akin to insanity. Hence, I think, the unbelief of some who had previously known the blind man haunting the cross-roads, and who were astonished afterwards when they beheld him unexpectedly able to discern objects with clear vision. And they are divided, from uncertainty regarding the event, and some who consider more carefully the greatness of the deed say that it is not the same man, but one remarkably like him whom they had known. For indeed it really is not strange that this opinion should be expressed by some, who by rejecting the truth were compelled through the greatness of the miracle to adopt an involuntary falsehood. Others again keep their minds free from obvious objections, and in reverence and fear they recognise the wonder, and say that it is the same man. But he who was healed quickly settled the question, by making his own statement, most worthy of credit as concerning himself. For no man can be ignorant of his own identity, even though very ill in delirium. Thus in every way the marvellous deed, discredited on account of the unusual degree of power it displayed, testifies that the Wonder-worker is to be reckoned among the great.

Then, also, if any had their eyes blinded in the deepest darkness, He restored them to their former sight. He also loosened the tongues of the dumb, so that they discoursed and spoke eloquently. He also opened the ears of the deaf, and caused them to hear; He cleansed the polluted and the blemished. And He performed all these things not by His hands, or the application of any remedy, but by His word and command, as also the Sibyl had foretold: "Doing all things by His word, and healing every disease."

And the blind man, not ashamed of his former wretchedness, not fearing the crowd, openly says: "It is I."

1314 The opinions of the people are presented when he says, Some said: It is he, the beggar, because they had often seen him begging, and later hurrying through the town when he went to the pool with the clay on his eyes. Thus they could not deny that it was he. But others were on the contrary opinion, so they said, No, but it is like him. The reason for this, as Augustine says, is that the man's appearance changed when he regained his sight, for nothing is so characteristic as the expression a person gets from his eyes: "A sensible man is known by his face" (Sir 19:29).

1315 The question is settled by the blind man because he said, the blind man, I am the man, the one who used to beg. His voice was grateful. For since he could not be ungrateful for such a great favor and was unable to show any other sign of gratitude than to constantly declare that he had been cured by Christ, he said, I am the man, the one who was blind and begged; and now I see: "Praise God and give thanks to him—for what he has done for you" (Tob 12:6).

"Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and saw." See, he is become the herald of grace; see, he preaches the gospel; endowed with sight, he becomes a confessor. That blind man makes confession, and the heart of the wicked was troubled; for they had not in their heart what he had now in his countenance.

They said therefore to him: How were your eyes opened? since you are the one who was blind. And he indicates to them the author and the manner.

With difficulty they consent to believe that he was the same man whom they had known aforetime, and abandoning their hesitation on this point, they ask how he had got rid of his blindness, and what was the manner of such an unhoped-for event. For it seems usual for those who are astonished to make careful inquiries and to investigate the manner of what has been done; and these persons resolved to do the same, not without the guidance of God, in our opinion, but in order that even unwillingly they might learn the power of Our Saviour from the narration and clear announcement which the blind man made to them. This thou mayest accept as a beautiful type of the converts from among the Gentiles becoming teachers to the people of Israel, after escaping from their former blindness and receiving the illumination which comes from Our Saviour Christ through the Spirit. And that what we have said is true, the events themselves will loudly proclaim.

Those who could see were clearly being drawn to the blind man, who saw inwardly. The blind man was being drawn secretly to those who could see but who were blind inwardly. He [the blind man] washed away the clay from his eyes and appeared to himself. They washed the blindness from their hearts and gained approval for themselves. When our Lord opened up the eyes of one blind man clearly in that moment, he opened up [the eyes of] many blind people secretly. For that blind man was [surely] blind. He was like a source of profit for our Lord, for by him our Lord acquired many blind people [by healing them] from the blindness of their heart.

"They said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus." What sayest thou? Doth "a man" work such deeds? As yet he knew nothing great concerning Him. "A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes." Observe how truthful he is. He saith not whence He made it, for he speaks not of what he doth not know; he saw not that He spat on the ground, but that He spread it on he knew from sense and touch. "And said unto me, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam." This too his hearing witnessed to him. But how did he recognize His voice? From His conversation with the disciples. And saying all this, and having received the witness by the works, the manner (of the cure) he cannot tell. Now if faith is needed in matters which are felt and handled, much more in the case of things invisible.

1316 Then (v 10), we see the investigation of the act, which was the restoration of the man's sight. First, we have the question asked by the Jews; secondly, the answer of the blind man (v 11).

1317 They continue: If you are the blind man who used to beg, then tell us, how were your eyes opened? This question came from their vain curiosity because neither the one who was cured nor we ourselves know how it was done: "Do not meddle in what is beyond your tasks" (Sir 3:23).

(Tr. xliv. s. 8) Lo, he is become a proclaimer of grace, an evangelist, and testifies to the Jews. That blind man testified, and the ungodly were vexed at the heart, because they had not in their heart what appeared upon his countenance. Then said they unto him, Where is He?

(Tr. xliv. 8) Here he is like one anointed, but unable yet to see: he preaches, and knows not what he preaches.

Thus he represents the state of the catechumen, who believes in Jesus, but does not, strictly speaking, know Him, not being yet washed.

And they said to him: Where is he? — namely, the healer. He said: I do not know. The anxiety of those censuring is noted in this, that they seek the healer, and not finding him, they do not release the one healed. And because they cannot find the healer, they bring the one healed to the Pharisees.

Not from devout feelings do they inquire for Jesus, nor are they moved to inquire where and with whom He was uttering discourses, so that they might go and seek some profit from His doings; but being blinded in the eyes of their understanding, even much worse than he had formerly been in those of his body, they are inflamed with most unjust anger, and rage like untamable beasts, thinking that Our Saviour had broken a commandment of the law, that one namely which forbids any work whatever to be done on the sabbath. And they raved immoderately, because He had dared actually to touch clay, rubbing the dirt round with His finger, and in addition to this had also directed the man to wash it off on the sabbath. Wherefore in anger and desperation they spit out the words, Where is He? without making any excuse for speaking so rudely. For in their pettiness they bestow abuse upon Him Who rightly deserved the highest honour, though they must have admired Him if they had been sincere and had known how to honour God's power with befitting praises. But thrusting aside in their extravagant maliciousness that which I think they ought in fairness to have thought and done, they devote themselves to untimely zeal. And falsely supposing that they were performing a duty in supporting the law which had somehow been wronged, they inquire for Jesus as one who had worked on the sabbath and thus wronged the excellent commandment by healing the man. Certainly they may have supposed that God was (so to speak) cruel and not compassionate on the sabbath, and was very angry when he saw a man healed, who was made in His own image and likeness, and on whose account the sabbath was instituted. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath, according to the saying of the Saviour.

His saliva was thus the key for closed eyes, for with water he healed the eye. From the water [he formed] clay and brought to wholeness what had been lost. When [later] they were spitting at his face, the blind eyes that had been opened by his saliva would accuse them.

"They said unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not." They said, "Where is he?" having already murderous intentions against Him. But observe the modesty of Christ, how He continued not with those who were healed; because He neither desired to reap glory, nor to draw a multitude, nor to make a show of Himself. Observe too how truthfully the blind man maketh all his answers.

They were asking him, "Where is he?" His reply was that he did not know because he had not seen him, since at the time [of the healing] he was blind.

Since the Lord, when granting healing and performing a miracle, usually concealed Himself out of His modesty, the blind man, when asked where Jesus was, says "I do not know," so as to be completely faithful to the truth.

1319 Next, we have the inquiry about the person who restored his sight (v 12). First, there is the question asked by the Jews, Where is he? They asked this maliciously, as they were thinking of killing him; for they had already formed a conspiracy against Christ: "But now you seek to kill me" (8:40).

Secondly, we have the answer of the blind man, I do not know. As Augustine says, from these words it is clear that what was accomplished in him physically represents what is accomplished spiritually at different stages. For at first, the blind man is anointed, and then sees after his washing. The anointing represents the beginning of his physical health, and the washing leads to complete health. In particular, an anointing produces a catechumen; and the washing, that is, baptism, perfects and enlightens him. Thus we have a representation of the difference in faith found at different stages. For when he says, I do not know, this represents the imperfect faith of catechumens: "You worship what you do not know" (4:22). This can also signify our faith: "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect" (1 Cor 13:9).

"They brought to the Pharisees him who had been blind. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked how he had received his sight. And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees;" not all, but some; for some were already anointed. What then said those who neither saw nor were anointed? "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath." He it was rather who kept it, who was without sin. For this is the spiritual Sabbath, to have no sin. In fact, brethren, it is of this that God admonishes us, when He commends the Sabbath to our notice: "Thou shalt do no servile work." These are God's words when commending the Sabbath, "Thou shalt do no servile work." Now ask the former lessons, what is meant by servile work; and listen to the Lord: "Every one that committeth sin is the servant of sin." But these men, neither seeing, as I said, nor anointed, kept the Sabbath carnally, and profaned it spiritually.

"Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" These were the anointed ones. "And there was a division among them." The day had divided between the light and the darkness.

It fell to the Pharisees to confirm or deny the miracle.

They brought him to the Pharisees, who had been blind, because they were anxious to censure; Luke 6: "The scribes and Pharisees watched whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that they might find an accusation against him."

They bring the man to the rulers, not that they might learn what had been done to him, and admire it; for it was not likely that men travailing with extreme envy against our Saviour Christ could ever be pleased by any such thing; but that they might publicly convict Jesus, as they thought, of a transgression of the law, and accuse Him of being a wrong-doer in having made clay on the sabbath. For rejecting the idea of the miracle because of its incredibility, they lay hold of the deed as a transgression, and for a proof of what had been done they exhibit the man upon whom He had dared to perform the miracle. At the same time they think to succeed in gaining a reputation for piety according to Jewish customs, and proceed to strain the legal commandment to the utmost. For in Deuteronomy He Who by Nature is Very God, enjoining the minds of the pious not to be drawn aside to another, nor to think there were any gods besides Him, but bidding them to serve Him only in truth, and to hate bitterly those who should dare to counsel them differently, thus speaks: If thy brother by thy father or mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or thy wife in thy bosom, or friend who is equal to thine own soul entreat thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, thou shalt not consent to him, neither shalt thou hearken to him, and thine eye shall not spare him, and thou shalt feel no regret for him, neither shalt thou at all protect him; thou shalt surely report concerning him. And so the Jews, looking only at the errors of others, and foolishly treating everything by the regulation laid down concerning one thing, brought before the magistrates those who were detected in any action contrary to the law, thinking that thereby they were honouring the Lawgiver. For this reason I think they enquired for Jesus, saying, Where is He? but being unable to find Him anywhere, they take as it were in the second place him upon whom the wonder had been wrought, that he might seal with his own voice the testimony to the breach of the law which had been committed by the actions of the One Who healed him on the sabbath.

(Hom. lvii. 2) The Jews, whom they asked, Where is He? were desirous of finding Him, in order to bring Him to the Pharisees; but, as they could not find Him, they bring the blind man. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind; i. e. that they might examine him still more closely.

They lead him to the Pharisees, in order to subject him to a more detailed and rigorous interrogation.

1320 Then when he says, they brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind, we see his examination by the Pharisees. First, they question the man born blind; secondly, his parents (v 18). He does three things with the first. First, we see the person to be examined; secondly, he mentions the intention of the examiners; and thirdly we have the interrogation itself.

1321 The one to be examined, the blind man, is led to the Pharisees by the people. They brought, that is, the crowd, to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. They did this because the crowd was trying to find out from him where Jesus was, so that if they found him they could bring him to the Pharisees and accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. So because they did not have Christ they took the blind man, so that by questioning him more roughly they might force him by fear to make up something false about Christ: "I will go to the great, and will speak to them; for they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God. But they all alike had broken the yoke, they had burst the bonds" (Jer 5:5).

(Tr. xliv. 4, 5) It was Christ, who divided the day into light and darkness.

Now it was the Sabbath. Here is touched upon the occasion for censuring, which was from the feast day and the manner of healing. By reason of the day he says: Now it was the Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes: above in chapter 5: "For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this" — namely, the work of healing — "on the Sabbath," as if despising the Law. The other occasion was from the manner of healing, which they therefore inquire about, because they cannot know it except through the confession of the blind man. They inquire about the manner so that, because they are unable to censure the deed, they might calumniate the manner.

When the blessed Evangelist is making it manifest to us that they were immoderately vexed at the making of clay on the sabbath, he fitly hints at the absurdity of the thing, by adding: Now it was the sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay.

The Evangelist adds, And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes; in order to expose their real design, which was to accuse Him of a departure from the law, and thus detract from the miracle: as appears from what follows, Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight.

The Evangelist notes that "it was the Sabbath" in order to show their malice, how they seize upon every occasion against Christ: they accuse Him of violating the Sabbath and thereby attempt to overshadow the miracle. Therefore they do not ask him "how did you receive your sight," but rather "how did He open your eyes," — in everything slandering the Lord as One who had worked on the Sabbath.

1322 The Evangelist shows that their intention was perverse, saying, it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay. He says this to show their evil intention and the reason why they sought Jesus, that is, to find a charge against him and detract from his miracle by his supposed violation of the law. Nevertheless, it should be said that "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mt 12:8).

And again the Pharisees asked him how he had received his sight; and they seek the manner and they hear the manner: whence: But he said to them: He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and now I see: he repeats briefly, because they had already heard from others, but they required greater certainty from his own mouth. And here the constancy of the blind man is apparent, who did not fear to confess the truth, keeping that saying of Ecclesiasticus 4: "For your soul be not ashamed to speak the truth."

And he said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes and I washed, and do see.

They receive eagerly, as if it were a sort of food for their envy, his confession of the marvel, and gladly seize upon the excuse for their rage against Jesus. For the man who had been blind relates everything on this occasion very simply, and speaks very abruptly, in brief expressions praising as. it were his Physician: for he is somewhat astounded at the nature of the deed. Probably he may have thought in his mind that Jesus had miraculously enabled him to see by anointing him with clay, an unusual medicament; and it seems to me that it was very significantly and with sharp meaning that he said He made clay, and anointed mine eyes. For it was as though one might suppose him to say: I know that I am speaking to a malicious audience, but nevertheless I will not on that account conceal the truth. I will requite my Benefactor with my thanks; I will be above unseasonable silence. I will honour by my confession the Physician, Who did not trouble me by an elaborate process of healing, or perform the operation by the knife and surgery, or effect what was necessary by compound mixtures of drugs, or adopt any ordinary method, but rather exhibited His power by strange devices. He made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. It is perhaps worthy of notice that the man very rightly added, as the climax to his description of these events, the words: And do see. For it is almost as though he said: I will prove to you that the power of the Healer was not exerted in vain; I will not deny the favour I received, for I now possess what I formerly longed for; I, he says, who was blind from birth and afflicted from the womb, having been anointed with clay, am healed, and do see. That is, I do not merely show you my eye opened, concealing the darkness in its depth, but I really see. I am henceforth able to look upon the things which formerly I could only hear about. Lo! the bright light of the sun is shining around me: lo! the beauty of strange sights surrounds my eye. A short time ago I scarcely knew what Jerusalem was like; now I see glittering in her the temple of God, and I behold in its midst the truly venerable altar. And if I stood outside the gate, I could look around on the country of Judea, and should recognise one thing as a hill and another as a tree. And when the time changes to evening, my eye will no longer fail to notice the beauty of the wondrous objects on high, the brilliant company of the stars, and the golden light of the moon. Thereupon I shall be amazed at the skill of Him Who made them; from the beauty of the creatures I as well as others shall acknowledge the Great Creator. So that however little breadth of imagination or elegance of argument he uttered, his language is pregnant with all this power when he adds: and do see, after saying: He made clay and anointed mine eyes. For the preacher's style of argument, which we employ, does not exclude all that is graceful in imagination, or reject it as useless. He therefore who had received mercy from Christ, when questioned before the priests, speaks as we have said, declaring in a truly innocent manner, and to the best of his ability, the power of the One Who had healed him.

Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him, How didst thou receive thy sight?

They busy themselves about the manner of the healing, stirring up as it were the fire of malice which was in them to a greater heat, and ask unnecessary questions, not failing, as it seems to me, to recognize the miracle. For is it not altogether absurd to suppose that they, who had come bringing to them the man who aforetime was blind, had not expressed at all the reason for which they had brought him? But as if they were not sufficient to accuse Christ, the magistrates compel him to confess with his own mouth what had been done, believing that by this means the malicious accusation would have greater force. For observe that they do not ask simply and barely if he had been healed, but they seek rather to hear how he received his sight; this was what they were particularly anxious to hear:----"He made clay, and anointed mine eyes." For it was in this that they foolishly conceived all the transgression of the law to lie, and imagining that laws from above were violated, they thought they were righteously vexed, and that punishment ought to be inflicted on Him Who vexed them.

Here, it is as though the man is saying: I will prove to you that the power of the Healer was not exerted in vain. I will not deny the favor I received, for I now possess what I formerly longed for. I who was blind from birth and afflicted from the womb, having been anointed with clay, am healed, and I see. That is, I do not merely show you my eye opened, concealing the darkness in its depth, but I really see. From now on I am able to look at things that formerly I could only hear about. Look! The bright light of the sun is shining around me. Look! The beauty of strange sights surrounds my eye. A short time ago I scarcely knew what Jerusalem was like. Now I see the temple of God glittering within it, and I behold in its midst the truly venerable altar. And if I stood outside the gate, I could look around on the country of Judea and recognize one thing as a hill and another as a tree. And when the time changes to evening, my eye will no longer fail to notice the beauty of the nighttime sky, the brilliant company of the stars and the golden light of the moon. When I do, I shall be amazed at the skill of him who made them "from the greatness and beauty of created things." I as well as others shall acknowledge the great Creator.

But mark the firmness of the blind man. To tell the truth to the multitude before, from whom he was in no danger, was not so great a matter: but it is remarkable, now that the danger is so much greater, to find him disavowing nothing, and not contradicting any thing that he said before: He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Ho is more brief this time, as his interrogators were already informed of the matter: not mentioning the name of Jesus, nor His saying, Go, and wash; but simply, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see; the very contrary answer to what they wanted. They wanted a disavowal, and they receive a confirmation of the story.

They compel the blind man himself to recall that He made the clay precisely on the Sabbath. He, answering those who had already heard, mentions neither the name of Jesus nor what the Lord said to him, but only says: "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed and I see." For the Pharisees had probably heard beforehand from those who brought the blind man to them, and perhaps slandered the Lord and said: "See what Jesus does on the Sabbath." The boldness of the blind man is worthy of note, that he speaks fearlessly with the Pharisees. They brought him so that he, struck with fear, would deny the reality of the healing, but he very clearly proclaims: "I see."

1323 His examination is conducted by the Pharisees, since it is said, The Pharisees again asked him. First, they question him about what was done; secondly, about the person who did it (v 16).

1324 The Evangelist does two things about the first: first, he presents their interrogation; secondly, the blind man's answer. They ask him about the sign he received, the Pharisees again asked him, not in order to learn, but to find a reason to accuse him of lying. The blind man answers them, not contradicting what he said before, nor deviating from the truth. He, that is, the blind man, said to them, He put clay on my eyes. We must, first, admire the perseverance of this blind man, for although it may not seem such a great thing to have spoken the truth when he, without danger, was questioned by the crowd, he showed remarkable perseverance when in greater danger before the Pharisees he neither denied what he had said before nor changed his account: "I will also speak of thy testimonies before kings, and shall not be put to shame" (Ps 119:46). Secondly, we should admire his skill, for it is good practice to first relate an event in detail and with all its circumstances, and then if it has to be repeated, to speak more concisely. So here, he does not repeat the name of the one who spoke to him, nor that he was told to go and wash. But without hesitation he relays only the essential, and says, He put clay on my eyes.

(Tr. xliv. 9) Some, not all: for some were already anointed. But they, who neither saw, nor were anointed, said, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Rather He kept it, in that He was without sin; for to observe the sabbath spiritually, is to have no sin. And this God admonishes us of, when He enjoins the sabbath, saying, In it thou shall do no servile work. (Exod. 20:10) What servile work is, our Lord tells us above, Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. (c. 8:34) They observed the sabbath carnally, transgressed it spiritually.

Therefore some of the Pharisees said, foolish zealots of the Law: Romans 10: "They have indeed a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." They said: This man is not from God, by conformity and accordance: who does not keep the Sabbath, which God commanded to be kept, Exodus 20 and in many other places. But others said: How can a sinful man do such signs? And these were more enlightened: whence these had some light, but the others were darkened; therefore it follows that there was a schism among them, that is, a division, by the just judgment of God dividing light from darkness and the good from the wicked: on account of which he said, Matthew 10: "I came not to send peace, but a sword."

But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.

Even these still think too meanly, speaking and reckoning as of a mere man; only, being convinced by the marvellous deed, they give the palm to Christ rather than to the law; and, putting the proof afforded by the Divine sign in opposition to the sabbath rest on this occasion, they appear in a better light as just judges. Yet, was it not acting greatly in opposition to the precepts laid down respecting the sabbath, to withdraw altogether the charge of transgression, and to acquit Him of sin, Who had not hesitated, when He thought fit, to do something even on the sabbath? But, coming to this conclusion by reasoning which seems unanswerable and has much common sense in it, they argue thus. For it is manifest and acknowledged beyond question, that to those who neglect the Divine law, and set at nought precepts ratified from on high, God would never give the power to achieve anything wonderful. To Christ, however, in the opinion of the Jews, He gave such power, although He slighted the law respecting the sabbath. Certainly the doing something on the sabbath, does not necessarily involve sin, but neither can any one doubt that the doing of good works is far better than remaining unemployed on that day. At all events, as the Saviour Himself somewhere else says, it is permitted to the Levites to minister on the sabbath, and they exercise their functions on that day without blame, or rather their remaining unemployed would be blamable. For would any one find fault if they were detected sacrificing oxen on the sabbath, or even attending to other kinds of offerings? He would on the other hand more probably accuse them if they were not doing their duty and fulfilling the regulations of Divine service. When therefore things dedicated according to the law for the good of certain persons are brought to the Divine altar even on the sabbath without prohibition, is it not more fitting still that a kind action should be performed unto a man, for whose sake the marvellous deed might be acceptable even on the sabbath? By just reasoning therefore, some of the Jews are inclined to an excellent judgment, and putting off by an effort from the eyes of their understanding the mist of ignorance that characterises their nation, they admire the glory of the Saviour, (although as yet not very ardently, for they speak of Him less worthily than they ought;) and they separate themselves from those who are actually condemning Him. For the one part unholily allowed themselves to be swayed by envy more than by just reasoning, and treat as a transgression that which in its nature could not in any wise be blamed; whereas the others, rightly considering the nature of the action, condemn such a foolish accusation.

It is of course possible that it was with reference to some other matter that they chose to say: How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? Perhaps, to put it briefly, they are eager to defend the general practice of holy men. For, say they, if we allow that it is quite possible for habitual transgressors to make themselves glorious by extraordinary actions and to be seen working marvellous deeds, what is there any longer to hinder those fond of making accusations from bringing charges against most of the prophets, or indeed by and bye attacking the blessed Moses himself, and lightly esteeming one so venerable, even though he was borne witness to by the most mighty actions of all? These men therefore may be contending for the reputation of the fathers as at stake in Christ, treating the circumstances respecting Him as a sort of pretext for showing their love towards them.

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.

In their folly they say He is not from God, Who has the power to work the works of God; and although they see the Son crowned with an equal measure of glory with the Almighty Father, they are not ashamed unreasonably to cast upon him the blame of impiety; and disregarding the report of the miracle, they attack the Wonder-worker with their peculiar envy, and carelessly accuse as an evildoer Him Who knew no sin. They foolishly believe the whole law to have been broken by His daring to move one finger on the sabbath, although they would themselves loose their ox from the stall and lead it away to water; moreover, if a sheep fell into a pit, as it is written, with much eagerness they would lift it out. So they strain out the gnat, according to the Saviour's word; for this was their ordinary custom. With much folly and very desperately they do not give credit to Christ for the marvellous deed, nor from the work of healing do they henceforth acknowledge Him to be what He is; but they cavil pettily about the sabbath, and, as if in their opinion all virtue was observed by merely remaining unemployed on the sabbath, they totally deny His relationship to God, saying that He was not from God; although they ought rather to have understood that the One before them had authority over His own laws, and that it was pleasing and acceptable to God to do good even on the sabbath, and not to leave without hope one who needed mercy. For whenever will any of you refuse to praise the doer of good deeds, or what set time can exercise a tyranny against virtue? Yet while they admire the ancient hero Joshua, who captured Jericho on the sabbath, and commanded their forefathers to do such things as are customary for conquerors, and himself by no means observed the proper sabbath rest; they persistently attack Christ, and as their personal ill-feeling prompted them, not only strive to take away from Him the glory due to God, but also to rob Him of the honour due to holy men. And being stirred up by their mere malice to speak very inconsiderately, they pour forth a charge of impiety against Him Who justifies the world, and for that very purpose came from the Father to us.

The Jews admire the ancient hero Joshua who captured Jericho on the sabbath and commanded their forefathers to do such things as are customary for conquerors—and Joshua himself by no means observed the proper sabbath rest. Yet, those who admire Joshua persistently attack Christ. Their personal ill will toward Christ prompted them not only to try and take away from him the glory due to God but also to rob him of the honor due to holy people. And speaking inconsiderately through their malice, they pour forth a charge of impiety against him who came to us from the Father and who justifies the world.

(Hom. lvii. 2) Passing over the miracle in silence, they give all the prominence they can to the supposed transgression; not charging Him with healing on the sabbath, but with not keeping the sabbath. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? They were impressed by His miracles, but only in a weak and unsettled way. For whereas such might have shown them, that the sabbath was not broken; they had not yet any idea that He was God, and therefore did not know that it was the Lord of the sabbath who had worked the miracle. Nor did any of them dare to say openly what his sentiments were, but spoke ambiguously; one, because he thought the fact itself improbable; another, from his love of station. It follows, And there was a division among them. That is, the people were divided first, and then the rulers.

Some of the Pharisees, not all, but the more audacious ones, said: "This Man is not from God." But others said: "How can a sinful man perform such miracles?" Do you see how under the influence of miracles many are softened? These people are Pharisees, rulers, and yet, as a result of this miracle, they are put to shame and offer some degree of defense. "And there was a division among them." This division had previously occurred among the people, for "some said, He deceives the people, while others said, He is good" (Jn. 7:12, 43), but now it begins also among the rulers. And behold, many Pharisees, having separated from the rest, defend the miracle. However, even after separating, they speak in favor of Christ very weakly, and more doubtfully and half-heartedly than firmly. For listen to what they say: "How can a sinful man perform such miracles?" Do you see how weakly they object? Look also at the cunning of the slanderers. They do not say that He is not from God because He heals on the Sabbath, but that He "does not keep the Sabbath"; they constantly put forward not the good deed, but the violation of the day. Note also that the rulers were slower to do good than the people. The people had already earlier been divided in their opinions, and not all spoke against Christ, while the rulers only after the people came to this commendable division. For sometimes division is even a good thing, as the Lord Himself says: "I came to bring a sword upon the earth" (Matt. 10:34), that is, undoubtedly, disagreement for the sake of good and piety.

1325 Next (v 16), an inquiry is made about the one who restored the man's sight. First, the different opinions of the Pharisees concerning Christ are given; secondly, the opinion of the blind man is sought (v 17). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he presents the opinion of those who were blaspheming Christ; then, the opinion of those who were commending him; thirdly, he concludes with the fact that they were arguing and disagreeing among themselves.

1326 We should note, concerning the first, that those who act maliciously against someone keep silent if they see anything good in his work, and they reveal the evil, if any is seen, even turning what is good into evil, according to "Beware of a scoundrel, for he devises evil, lest he give you a lasting blemish" (Sir 11:33). This is what they are doing here: for they do not mention what seemed good, that is, the restoration of the blind man's sight, but stress what they can against Christ, that is, his breaking of the Sabbath. Thus some of the Pharisees said, that is, those who were malicious and corrupt, this man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath. But Christ did keep the Sabbath, for when the Lord forbade work on the Sabbath he had in mind servile work, which is a sin: "Every one who does sinful works on the Sabbath breaks the Sabbath. So Christ, who was without sin, rather than they, kept the Sabbath.

1327 The opinion of those commending him is presented when he reports them as saying, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? These others had some faith due to the signs that Christ worked, but were still weak and imperfect; it was out of fear of the Pharisees and the elders that they asked with hesitation, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? We read below that "Many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it" (12:42). They should have shown how our Lord had not broken the Sabbath, and have appropriately replied in defense of Jesus.

1328 The difference of opinion among them is mentioned when he says, there was a division among them; and this division was also found in the people. This was a sign of their destruction: "Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt" (Hos 10:2); "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste" (Mt 12:25).

"They say then unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him who hath opened thine eyes?" What is thy feeling about him? what is thine opinion? what is thy judgment? They sought how to revile the man, that he might be cast out of the synagogue, but be found by Christ. But he steadfastly expressed what he felt. For he said, "That he is a prophet." As yet, indeed, anointed only in heart, he does not thus far confess the Son of God, and yet he speaks not untruthfully. For the Lord saith of Himself, "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country."

(Tr. xliv. 9) Or they sought how they could throw reproach upon the man, and cast him out of their synagogue. He declares however openly what he thinks: He said, He is a Prophet. Not being anointed yet in heart, he could not confess the Son of God; nevertheless, he is not wrong in what he says: for our Lord Himself says of Himself, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. (Luke 4:24)

Therefore they say again to the blind man, namely the Pharisees: What do you say of him who opened your eyes? namely whether he is good or evil: and they inquire maliciously, but the blind man answered simply. But he said: He is a Prophet: the Gloss: "He firmly expresses what he feels," as the crowds, Luke 7: "A great Prophet has risen among us."

The cunning of the Pharisees in testing is noted: for they test the blind man as to what he thinks of Christ, so that, if ill, they might make him deny the miracle of Christ; if well, they might not believe his words.

And he said, He is a prophet.

They receive a sharp arrow into their hearts, who do not admit fair and just reasoning, and are eager to seek that only which gratifies their malice. For, as it is written, the crafty man shall not meet with prey. For their zealous design is upset, contrary to their expectation; and they are greatly disappointed of their hope when to their surprise they receive the reply: He is a prophet. For the man who had been healed, judging very rightly, agrees with the opinion of the other party. For they, not unwisely considering the nature of the action, maintain that a man who was a sinner could not perform such a deed: and he upon whom the marvel has been wrought, all but pursuing the same track of argument, declares Jesus to be a prophet, not yet having accurately learned Who He is in truth, but adopting a notion current among the Jews. For it was customary with them to call wonder-workers prophets, deeming that their holiness was thereby borne witness to by God. Accordingly, just as they wisely determine not to dishonour the majesty of the Divine sign out of reverence for the sabbath, but argue from it that He Who wrought it was altogether guiltless of sin; so also I suppose this man, thrusting aside the petty cavil respecting the sabbath, with worthier thoughts gives glory to Him Who had freely given him sight, and, having allotted him a place amongst holy men, calls him a prophet. He seems to me, moreover, not to have thought too highly of the regulations of the law; for [otherwise] he would not have admired Jesus so much, or raised his Physician to the rank of a prophet in spite of his apparent transgression of the sabbatical law. Having certainly derived benefit from the marvellous deed, and having arrived at a better state of mind than that of the Jews, he is therefore obliged to admit a superiority to legal observances in the Wonder-worker, Who, in doing good works, deemed an infringement of the law altogether blameless.

They say therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of Him, in that He opened thine eyes?

They imagine those who are disposed to judge fairly to be wandering in their wits, and they seem to me to have forgotten altogether Him Who says: Judge righteous judgment; and having been taken captive as it were in the bonds of envy, they cannot endure to listen at all to any word that honours Christ. Turning away from any one wishing to speak of His miracles as from some one most hostile to themselves, and mistrusting their own powers of explanation, they haughtily address their words to the man that had been healed. Again they ask what had been many times told them, having already proclaimed their belief that He Who had performed an action contrary to the sabbath was both worthless and wicked. They think that in this way the blind man will join them in condemning Him, and take his cue from their words; that he will suppress all outward signs of gratitude, out of fear and trembling before their anger, and readily charge Jesus with contempt of the law, because of its being the sabbath. Evil therefore was the design of the Pharisees, and it cannot be doubted that it was foolish also. For how could the voice of one thankless man weaken the force of the miracle? And would not Christ's Divine glory appear, if it so happened that the blind man, overcome by fear, should deny the kindness he had received, in order to avoid suffering anything from those wont to inflict pain? But envy is powerful to persuade those who are bursting with it to eagerly do any thing in their passion, even though it involves conduct very fairly open to ridicule. The mind which is free from such thoughts, however, is not entangled by foolish arguments; but, ever preserving its natural excellence untarnished, is borne directly towards a right conclusion, and does not go beyond the limits of truth. Mean therefore and insolent are the Pharisees, thinking that those who choose to think and speak rightly are wandering in their wits, and endeavouring to compel the man to speak evil words concerning Him Who had miraculously bestowed on him an unhoped-for blessing. But he was disposed to express gratitude and had been brought nigh to a clear knowledge by means of the miracle.

We must go over the Scriptures not in a chance way or carelessly, but with all exactness, that we be not entangled. Since even now in this place one might with show of reason question, how, when they had asserted, "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath," they now say to the man, "What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes?" and not, "What sayest thou of him, that he hath broken the Sabbath?" but put now that which was the ground of the defense, not that of the accusation. What then have we to reply? That these (who speak) are not the men who said, "This man is not of God," but those who separated themselves from them, who also said, "A man that is a sinner cannot do such miracles." For desiring to silence their opponents the more, in order that they may not seem to be partisans of Christ, they bring forward the man who had received proof of His power, and question him. Observe now the wisdom of the poor man, he speaketh more wisely than them all. First he saith, "He is a Prophet"; and shrank not from the judgment of the perverse Jews who spake against Him and said, "How can this man be of God, not keeping the Sabbath?" but replied to them, "He is a Prophet."

While they were discussing things, they turned to the blind man again, as if they chose him as their arbiter, and they said to him, "What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened." Should we admire him for the work he performed? Or is he a sinner because he violated the sabbath? So about the one "who opened your eyes," that is, since he opened your eyes, what do you have to say about him? What is your opinion? The blind man wisely answered the question, saying, "He is a prophet," that is, that is the kind of respect I have for him, and it encapsulates what I think of the work he performed. When they saw that the miracle itself already testified to the power of the healer and that the blind man openly revealed the grace he had received and proclaimed the greatness of his helper, they began to doubt whether that man who had been healed was really the blind man or someone else. And so they were obliged to call his parents.

Who were those asking "what do you say about Him?" They were from among the prudent ones, for they were saying: "How can a sinner do such things?" So as not to appear to be defending Him without cause, they bring forth as witness the very one who received the benefit, as one who had experienced His power firsthand, in order to shut the mouths of slanderers. See how prudently they ask. They did not say "what do you say about Him, because He made clay, because He did not keep the Sabbath," but they recall the miracle — "because He opened your eyes" — as if urging the healed man to speak the real truth about Christ. They remind him and encourage him: "Because He opened your eyes." "He," they say, "bestowed His grace upon you. Therefore you ought to proclaim about Him." The blind man now confessed what he could, namely: that He is not a sinner, but from God, that He is a Prophet, although some say that He is not from God because He does not keep the Sabbath. Christ anointed with clay using a single finger, and they consider Him a violator of the Sabbath. Yet they themselves untie animals with their whole hand in order to water them, and consider themselves pious.

See with what good intent they put the question. They do not say, What sayest thou of Him that keepeth not the sabbath, but mention the miracle, that He hath opened thine eyes; meaning it would seem, to draw out the healed man himself; He hath benefited them, they seem to say, and thou oughtest to preach Him.

1329 Next (v 17), they ask the blind man for his opinion. And first we have the question the Pharisees asked; secondly, the blind man's answer.

They question him, saying, what do you say about him? According to Chrysostom, this question was not asked by those who were blaspheming Christ, but by those favorably disposed. This is clear from the way they questioned him; for they call his attention to the gift he received, saying, since he has opened your eyes. If the others had been doing the questioning, they would not have said this, but would rather recall that Christ broke the Sabbath. But these remind him of the benefit that he received to make him grateful and lead him to testify to Christ.

But according to Augustine, this question was asked by Christ's enemies, who wanted to deprecate this man who constantly professed the truth; or they were trying to get him to change his opinion out of fear; or at least were attempting to exclude him from the synagogue.

The answer of the blind man remained the same, he said, He is a prophet. Although up to this time, as though unanointed in heart, he did not yet profess that Christ was the Son of God, he firmly expressed what he thought and did not lie. For our Lord said of himself: "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country" (Mt 13:57); "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet—him shall you heed" (Dt 18:15).

(Tr. xliv. s. 10) i. e. had been blind, and now saw.

The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind. Here is touched upon the hardness of the Jews in believing: for they were unwilling to believe, on this account namely, because he praised Christ; therefore they held him suspect. They did not believe, namely until they called the parents of him who had received his sight: for they hoped through them to invalidate the miracle; whence Chrysostom: "They thought to make the miracle abortive through the parents"; whence they always strove to rebel, according to that saying of Job 24: "They were rebels against the light and knew not its ways."

The envy against the Healer which is hot within them does not allow them to believe what is acknowledged by all; and, swayed by the frenzy of madness, they of course care little for the discovery of truth, and speak falsely against Christ. First they applied pressure to the man himself, and now they are seen to be no less rashly distressing his parents, but with the very opposite result to that which they intended. They propose a most superfluous question to the man's parents, and they seem to me, in their unbounded folly, to dishonour the very law which they so venerated and so extravagantly upheld. For the neighbours, as it is written, brought him that aforetime was blind, and setting him face to face with those who were asking these questions, they reported most clearly that he had been born blind, and bore witness that now he had received sight. Thus, whereas the law distinctly says that every matter is established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, they set aside the testimony not merely of two or three but probably of many more, and go for further evidence to the parents of him who was healed, thus acting contrary to the law as well as to good manners. But the law is nothing to them when they are eager to accomplish something agreeable to their private pleasures. For when the testimony borne to the miracle, by the voices both of the neighbours and of the man who was healed, put them out of countenance sorely against their will; they expected to be able to persuade those now being questioned, to make light of truth, and rather to speak as they wished them to speak. For see in how overbearing a manner they put their question, saying: Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? For they all but avow their certain intention to treat them very dreadfully, and they frighten them with unbounded fear, calling as it were by compulsion and violence for that which they wished to hear, namely the answer: "He was not born blind." For they had but one object and that an impious one, namely, to loosen the hold which Christ had on the multitudes, and to turn away the simple faith of such as were now overcome with admiration. And just as men who strive to take some well-fortified city environ it on every side and besiege it in all manner of ways; at one time they are eager to undermine the foundations, at another they strike blows with battering-rams against the towers: so the shameless Pharisees lay siege to the miracle with all their evil devices and leave no method of impiety untried. But it was not possible to disparage as unworthy of credit what was well known to all, or to distort that at which many had marvelled into a less certain conviction.

"And they did not believe that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they had called his parents."

Observe in how many ways they attempt to obscure and take away the miracle. But this is the nature of truth, by the very means by which it seems to be assailed by men, by these it becomes stronger, it shines by means of that by which it is obscured. For if these things had not taken place, the miracle might have been suspected by the many; but now, as if desiring to lay bare the truth, so do they use all means, and would not have acted otherwise, supposing they had done all in Christ's behalf. For they first attempted to cast Him down by occasion of this mode (of cure), saying, "How opened he thine eyes?" that is, "was it by some sorcery?" In another place also, when they had no charge to bring against Him, they endeavored to insult the mode of the cure, saying, "He doth not cast out devils save by Beelzebub." And here again, when they have nothing to say, they betake themselves to the time (of cure), saying, "He breaketh the Sabbath"; and again, "He is a sinner." Yet He asked you, who would slay Him, and who were ready to lay hold of His actions, most plainly, saying, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" and no man spake, nor said "Thou blasphemest because thou makest thyself without sin." But if they had had it in their power to say so, they would not have held their peace. For they who because they heard that He was before Abraham would have stoned Him, and said that He was not of God, who boasted that they, murderers as they were, were of God, but who said that One who did such wonders, after that He had wrought a cure, was not of God, because He kept not the Sabbath, if they had had but a shadow of a charge against Him, would never have let it pass. And if they call Him a sinner because He seemed to break the Sabbath, this charge also is shown to be unsound, when those who are ranked with them condemn their great coldness and littleness of soul.

Being therefore entangled on every side, they afterwards betake themselves to something else more shameless and impudent. What is that? They "did not believe," It saith, "that he had been blind, and received his sight." How then did they charge Christ with not keeping the Sabbath? Plainly, as having believed. But why gave ye not heed to the great number of people? to the neighbors who knew him? As I said, falsehood everywhere defeats itself by the very means by which it seems to annoy the truth, and makes the truth to appear more bright. Which was now the case. For that no one might say that his neighbors and those who had seen him did not speak with precision, but guessed from a likeness, they bring forward his parents, by whom they succeeded against their will in proving that what had taken place was real, since the parents best of all knew their own child. When they could not terrify the man himself, but beheld him with all boldness proclaim his Benefactor, they thought to wound the miracle by means of his parents.

The hard-hearted and obstinate ones summon his parents with the purpose of putting them in a difficult position and thereby compelling them to deny their son's former blindness. Since they could not silence well-meaning mouths, they intimidate the parents, hoping to discredit the miracle. And so, they place them in the middle and interrogate them with fury and even greater malice.

Either, say they, it is not true that he now sees, or it is untrue that he was blind before: but it is evident that he now sees; therefore it is not true that he was born blind.

1330 Next (v 18), we see his parents questioned. First, we have the reason why they were questioned; secondly, the question itself (v 19); thirdly their answer (v 20); and fourthly, the reason for this answer (v 22).

1331 The reason for this second questioning was the unbelief of the Pharisees. He says, the Jews, that is, the Pharisees, did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man. They did this in an attempt to nullify the miracle of Christ and to preserve their own glory: "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another?" (Jn 5:44).

And they asked them, saying. Here is touched upon the diligence of the Jews in inquiring: for they ask the parents three things: the person, the condition, and the wondrous change. For this reason it is said: Is this your son? They ask about the person. Whom you say was born blind? That is, about whom you say that he was born blind; they ask interrogatively about the condition. How then does he now see? They ask about the change: they inquire prudently and diligently, because, as it is said in Luke sixteen, "the children of this age are more prudent than the children of light in their generation."

"Is this your son?" (and they said not, "who once was blind," but) "of whom ye say that he was born blind?"

As if they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ. O ye accursed, utterly accursed! What father would choose to invent such falsehoods against his child? For they almost say, "Whom ye have made out blind, and not only so, but have spread abroad the report everywhere." "How then doth he now see?"

O folly! "Yours," saith one, "is the trick and the contrivance." For by these two things do they attempt to lead the parents to a denial; by using the words, "Whom ye say," and, "How then doth he now see?" Now when there were three questions asked, whether he was their son, whether he had been blind, and how he received his sight, the parents only acknowledge two of them, but do not add the third. And this came to pass for the sake of the truth, in order that none other save the man that was healed, who was also worthy of credit, should acknowledge this matter.

They do not say "is this your son, who was once blind," but rather "of whom you say," as if speaking thus: "whom you made out to be blind and spread the rumor of this everywhere, entirely fabricated and false." But, O impious Pharisees! What father would allow himself to lie so about his own child? They press them from two sides and compel them to renounce their son: on one side with the expression "of whom you speak," and on the other with the question "how does he now see?" Do you see? By the supposedly false testimony of the parents that their son had formerly been blind, they diminish this miracle — that he subsequently received his sight. They say: "Either the fact that he sees now is false, or the fact that he was blind is false. But that he can see is true; therefore, you have falsely spread the claim that he was formerly blind."

1332 The Pharisees now question his parents. Here they ask about three things. First, about their son, saying Is this your son? Secondly, about his blindness; and so they add, who you say was born blind. They did not say, "who at one time was blind," but who you say, implying that they made this up. What father would lie in such a way about his son? Yet they were trying to make him say he did.

Thirdly, they ask how he had obtained his sight, How then does he now see? This was like saying: Either it is false that he now sees, or that he was once blind; but obviously the truth is that he sees; therefore it was false to say that he had been blind: "The powerful man will test you through much talking, and while he smiles he will be examining you" (Sir 13:11).

His parents answered them, that is, the father and mother, and said: We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. And in this the Pharisees are refuted by the most certain testimony of the parents: whence Chrysostom says: "Who would believe that parents would tell such lies about their son?" And although they spoke the truth, nevertheless not the whole truth.

They acknowledge as true that which was in no wise doubtful and for which it was hardly likely they would suffer anything disagreeable; for they say that they recognise their own offspring, and do not deny what really was the case at his birth, but distinctly affirm that he was born with the affliction. Nevertheless they shrink from relating the miracle, leaving the nature of the deed to speak for itself, and maintaining that it would be much more suitable to put the question as to how he had been healed to their son himself. Fear of danger is certainly a powerful motive to turn men aside from what it befits them to do. Being greatly alarmed by the harshness of the Pharisees, they do not observe that which is somewhere well said: Strive for the truth unto death. It is likely that they did suffer something of another sort; for the poor man is always timid, and, losing through, his poverty the power to offer bold resistance, often takes refuge in an unwilling silence, and a forced acquiescence: as if already completely crushed in spirit by the vexation of poverty, he seems insensible to being burdened with other misfortunes. We suspect that the parents of the blind man suffered something of this sort, even though their answer on the whole is composed with great plausibility. For every one would agree that the recognition of the man as their son was a matter as to which it was far more reasonable to interrogate them than the man himself, whereas the question as to the Physician was one not so much, for the parents to answer as for him who had experienced the benefit of the wonderful operation. Thus they distinctly acknowledge what they know, inasmuch as they are fairly called upon for this; but what he could tell more truly, since he had the more accurate knowledge, about that they call upon him to give information. And it is not without Divine guidance. I think, that they added to their speech the words: He is of age. For this too seems to indicate the impiety of the Pharisees. Because, if he that received sight was qualified by his time of life to form a sound opinion; when he relates the miracle and how he was treated, he will not speak with the mind of a boy, but with an understanding now well matured, and probably able to support by argument those speakers with whom he agrees. This then will of necessity tend to show the utterly shameless incredulity of the Pharisees. For behold! they will believe neither the neighbours nor the blind man himself, although it is not with an immature intellect that he gives evidence, nor on account of a boyish understanding does he easily glide into falsehood; but he is of age, a fact which prevents his being ignorant of the nature of affairs.

Now when there were three questions asked, whether he was their son, whether he had been blind, and how he received his sight, the parents only acknowledged two of them, but do not add the third. And this came to pass for the sake of the truth, in order that none other save the man that was healed, who was also worthy of credit, should acknowledge this matter. And how would the parents have favored Christ, when even of what they knew some part they spake not through fear of the Jews? What say they?

"We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now seeth we know not, or who hath opened his eyes we know not; he is of age, he shall speak for himself."

By making him to be worthy of credit, they begged off themselves; "He is not a child, say they, nor incapable, but able to testify for himself."

The Pharisees posed three questions to the parents of the blind man: 1) is this their son? 2) was he born blind? and 3) how did he come to see? To the first two questions they answer affirmatively, that this is their son and that he was blind.

1333 Then, the answer of his parents is given (v 20). The Pharisees had asked about three things; they answer firmly about two and in regard to the third they refer them to their son. First, they admit the first, namely, that he is their son; so they say, we know that this is our son. They also admit the second when they add, and that he was born blind. This shows that the truth always conquers what is false, as we read in the apocryphal 3 Esdras (3:13): "Truth conquers all." Yet as to the third question, how their son sees, they answer, but how he now sees we do not know.

They reply, secondly, about the person who gave him his sight, now do we know who opened his eyes. They answer this way because the question was directed against the one who gave sight to their son, and so they refer this to their son, saying, Ask him, he is of age. This was like saying: He was born blind, not mute; thus he can speak for himself in this matter. The testimony about this miracle was from several sources so as to make it more believable: the parents told what they knew, and their blind son confirmed that he had been cured.

(Tr. xliv. 10) As f to say, We might justly be compelled to speak for an infant, that could not speak for itself: but he, though blind from his birth, has been always able to speak.

But how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know: because, namely, we were not present, nor do we know more than you, nor is it necessary to ask us, but rather him: whence they say: Ask him, because he can answer; he is of age, let him speak for himself. The Evangelist assigns the reason for this response. The reason for that response was fear of the Jewish conspiracy.

Besides having spoken falsely, they committed another sin by exposing their son to obvious harm. But I think this also has a reason. When the Savior opened the eyes of the blind man, he did not open those of a child but of one full grown so that he might see as a full-grown man. But such was also the case with other blind men who received sight. However, it is true that he being of full age can speak for himself, and especially so when Jesus makes him receive his sight. For he needs no one else to negotiate for him.

The Pharisees posed three questions to the parents of the blind man: 1) is this their son? 2) was he born blind? and 3) how did he come to see? To the first two questions they answer affirmatively, that this is their son and that he was blind, but concerning the manner of healing they do not answer, owing to ignorance. This happened, without doubt, so that the truth might be established more firmly, so that it might be attested by the very one who received the benefit and therefore the most credible witness, as his parents themselves say: "He is of full age, he is not a child or a minor who would not understand how he was healed."

The Evangelist shows that it was not from ignorance, but fear, that they gave this answer.

"But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see? His parents answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: but by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him." What is this: "They feared the Jews"? "They feared the Jews," that is, the Pharisees. As it is written elsewhere, "Many of the rulers also believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." O evil fear! The Jews expel from the synagogue, and Christ receives into heaven. Nevertheless the love of human glory hindered many even who believed from confessing.

(Tr. xliv. 10) It was no disadvantage to be put out of the synagogue: whom they cast out, Christ took in.

Now his parents said these things because they feared the Jews; Isaiah fifty-one: "Who are you, that you should fear a mortal man and the son of man, who will wither like grass?" And First Maccabees two: "Do not fear the words of a sinful man, because his glory is dung and worms." And the reason for their fear is given: For the Jews had already conspired that if anyone confessed him to be the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. A conspiracy is a binding together for evil, just as in Jeremiah eleven, "a conspiracy was found among the men of Judah and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem." They returned to the iniquities of their fathers and conspired to destroy the name of Christ; Jeremiah eleven: "Let us destroy him from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more."

Well and fitly does our Lord Jesus the Christ utter this woe at the heads of the Pharisees: Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the hey of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. For again let the devout person consider if the beauty of truth will not correspond to these words; for Christ could never be deceived. For behold! besides the unwillingness of any one of them to teach the doctrine of the presence of the Christ among them, they both terrify with cruel fear those who could perceive Him by the brilliance of His actions, and, by imposing a severe compulsion in their savageness, hinder any member of their company who seemed disposed to do so from acknowledging His miracles. For by putting out of the synagogue him who was right-minded and therefore disposed to believe, the wretches do not blush of their own authority to alienate in a manner from God him who cleaves to God; and to persuade him that the Lord of all is a partaker of the madness against all which they themselves possess. The admirable Evangelist however defends such, and says that the persons questioned were overcome by fear and therefore unwilling to say that the Christ had healed their son: so that by exposing the magnitude of the fury of the Jews, he might make it evident to those that come after. For what could be more inhuman than the conduct of these men, who deem right-minded persons worthy of punishment, and bring under the necessity of being punished, such as at all understand Him Who was proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets? And we shall find from the sacred Scriptures that the unholy design of the Jews was not unknown to the holy Prophets. For He Who searcheth the hearts and reins, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart, to Whom all things are naked and laid open, saith by Isaiah: Woe to the rebellious children: thus saith the Lord, Ye took counsel, but not of Me; ye made covenants, but not by My Spirit; to add sin to sin. For he who saith that Jesus is Lord most certainly will speak in the Holy Spirit, according to the words of Paul; but any one who professes the contrary will not speak in the Holy Spirit, (how could it be possible?) but rather in Beelzebub. Surely then the covenants of the Jews were not made by the Holy Spirit, for they added sins to sins. They first of all draw down the doom of disobedience upon their own heads, and then they communicate it to others by forbidding them to confess the Christ. Surely the design is full of the grossest impiety, albeit the Psalmist laughs at those who to their disappointment engage in a fruitless undertaking, saying: Thou O Lord shalt confound them in Thy wrath, and the fire shall devour them; their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men: for they intended evil against Thee; they imagined a device which they are not able to perform. For they were quite unable to carry out a design which fought against God, although often and in ten thousand ways they attempted to obscure the glory of Christ. Therefore they were turned back, that is, were driven from the face and presence of the Lord of all, justly being addressed with the words: Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which ye kindled.

"These words spake they, because they feared the Jews."

Observe how the Evangelist again brings forward their opinion and thoughts. This I say, because of that speech which they before uttered, when they said, "He maketh Himself equal to God." For had that also been the opinion of the Jews but not the judgment of Christ, he would have added and said, that "it was a Jewish opinion." When therefore the parents referred them to him that had been healed, they called him again the second time, and did not say openly and shamelessly, "Deny that Christ healed thee," but would fain effect this under a pretense of piety.

Thus evil mastered the rulers who not only disabled themselves through unbelief but also through their threatening shut the way of salvation for the rest.

The parents answered thus because they feared the Pharisees.

For they were fainthearted; not like their son, that intrepid witness to the truth, the eyes of whose understanding had been enlightened by God.

1334 The reason for their answer is given when he says, his parents said this because they feared the Jews; for they were still imperfect and did not dare do what our Lord says: "Do not fear those who kill the body" (Mt 10:28). The reason for their fear was that the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. "I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues" (Jn 16:1). As Augustine says, it was no longer an evil to be cast out of the synagogue, for the ones they rejected Christ welcomed.

Therefore said his parents, He is of age, ask him.

Therefore his parents said: He is of age; ask him: for they were still among those about whom it is said below in chapter twelve, that "many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they be cast out of the synagogue."

They were unsteady and more fainthearted than their son. But he was becoming a fearless witness of the truth; he had begun to see well with the eyes of his mind also.

They wished him to give glory to God, by calling Christ a sinner, as they did: We know that this man is a sinner.

"Then again called they the man who had been blind, and said unto him, Give God the glory." What is that, "Give God the glory"? Deny what thou hast received. Such conduct is manifestly not to give God the glory, but rather to blaspheme Him. "Give God," they say, "the glory: we know that this man is a sinner. Then said he, If he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see."

(Tr. xliv. s. 11) Deny that thou hast received the benefit. This is not to give God the glory, but rather to blaspheme Him.

They therefore called again the man who had been blind and said to him: Give glory to God, namely, by confessing the truth. For to give glory to God is to confess the truth about something, as if in God's presence; Joshua 7: "My son, confess and give glory to God." And that truth was that he should not attribute this miracle to Christ; on account of which they say: We know that this man is a sinner; confess therefore that you were not healed by this man, but by God. Chrysostom: "They were attempting to do this under the appearance of religion"; and yet they were leading him to evil. Whence Augustine: "To deny what you have received is not to give glory to God, but rather to blaspheme God." And although they flatter, they do not prevail, because the blind man spurns their admonition and speaks the truth.

Now that the attempt of the Pharisees to censure and deny has been frustrated, here they endeavor to overshadow the miracle, so that it may not be attributed to Christ the Lord, but that his name may be silenced. Therefore they endeavor here to draw the blind man back from confessing the name of Christ in this order: first, namely, by flatteries; second, by cunning; third, by reproaches; fourth, by injuries.

Being unable to stop the man from speaking well of Christ, they attempt to attain a similar end by another method, and proceed to entice him in a sort of coaxing way to fulfil their private aim. Trying by many arguments to make him forget Christ altogether, and not even mention Him as a Physician, they say most craftily that he ought to ascribe glory to God on account of the marvellous deed, thus pretending piety. Nevertheless they bid him agree with and believe themselves, even when they maintain the highest impiety possible by saying that He is a sinner, Who came to destroy sin. They bring forward no proof whatever of this slanderous assertion, but being boasters and thinking something great and extraordinary of themselves, merely because they were leaders of the people, they command implicit confidence to be put in their discernment of character, and lay it down as a matter of duty. For the words, We know, will be found pregnant with surpassing arrogance by those who closely examine what they imply. But thou mayest in no small degree wonder at the foolish mind of the Jews from this also, that whereas they decree that glory should be ascribed to God on account of the miracle, since He alone is the doer of such deeds, they condemn One Who works the works of God by His own might; and not only do the miserable people act thus themselves, but they compel others to agree with them. Yet when they aver that by their own unaided knowledge they are sure that Christ is a sinner, they are ignorant that they assert something most harmful to themselves. For, being wont to boast greatly of their learning in the Law, and exhibiting intolerable conceit about the Sacred Scriptures, they will suffer a greater penalty; because, it being in their power to know the mystery of Christ, which by the Law and the Prophets in many ways is typified and proclaimed, they with much heedlessness cling to their self-imposed ignorance; or, if they possess accurate knowledge, are always most pertinaciously unwilling to do what they ought. For they ought rather to instruct the mind of the common people to comprehend the mysteries of Christ, and to try to lead others to the knowledge of what it behoved them to know. But they, profuse in arguments and mighty in boasts, and crying out with far too high an opinion of themselves: We know, set aside the words of the Law, account the voice of Moses as nothing, and think the declarations of prophets to be as vain as those of the thoughtless mob; for they quite fail to take notice of what the voice of the prophet foretels will happen at the time of Our Saviour Christ's coming, for he says: Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be distinct. For the paralytic was healed at the pool of Bethesda, and after passing through thirty and eight years in his infirmity, as it is written, by one word of the Saviour he took up his bed and leaped away like a hart: yet when they ought to have admired Jesus for that, they lamented the breach of the sabbath, and, holding that the law had been transgressed, disparaged the excellence of the miracle. At another time, when an evil spirit had been cast out of him, the dumb man spake; but they fell into such terrible folly as not to gain even a little profit from it. The blind man received sight, the prophetic announcement was fulfilled, the word of the Spirit was brought to pass to the uttermost, and what? Again at this they go mad, they condemn the Wonder-worker, they attribute sin to Him Who is able to shine forth with Divine brightness, and Who displays as actually now present that which had been expected long ages before.

"Give," saith one, "the glory to God."

For to have said to the parents, "Deny that he is your son, and that he was born blind," would have seemed very ridiculous. And again, to have said this to himself would have been manifest shamelessness. Wherefore they say not so, but manage the matter in another way, saying, "Give God the glory," that is, "confess that this man hath wrought nothing."

"We know that this man is a sinner."

"Why then did ye not convict Him when He said, 'Which of you convinceth Me of sin?' Whence know ye that He is a sinner?" After that they had said, "Give God the glory," and the man had made no reply, Christ meeting praised him, and did not rebuke him, nor say, "Wherefore hast thou not given glory to God?" But what said He? "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" that thou mayest learn that this is "to give glory to God." Now had He not been equal in honor to the Father, this would not have been giving glory; but since he that honoreth the Son honoreth the Father also, the blind is with good reason not rebuked.

As the parents insisted that their son should be asked, so the arrogant ones do. They bring him, but not in order to question him, rather to suggest to him an accusation against the Healer. For the suggestion "give glory to God" means: confess that Jesus did nothing for you; and in attributing nothing good to Jesus, they place the glory of God! We know, they say, that He is a sinner. Why then did you not convict Him, when He challenged you to do so, saying "Which of you convicts Me of sin" (Jn. 8:46)?

For they were fainthearted; not like their son, that intrepid witness to the truth, the eyes of whose understanding had been enlightened by God.

1335 After the questioning of the blind man and his parents, an attempt is made to make him deny the truth and affirm what is false. First, they attempt to make him deny the truth; secondly, they revile him (v 28); and thirdly, they condemn him (v 34). The Evangelist does two things about the first. First, he shows how they tried to get the man born blind to deny the truth; secondly, how they continued to question him in order to malign him (v 26). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows their malice; and secondly, the steadfastness of the man born blind (v 25). The malice of the Pharisees is shown by their attempt to have him deny the truth, while the steadfastness of the blind man appears by his resolute profession of the truth.

1336 In regard to the first he says, for the second time they called the man who had been blind, for his parents had referred them to the blind man, and said to him: Give God the praise. They say one thing but mean another. For they wish to force him to say that his sight was not restored by Christ, or if they are unable to do this, to force him to admit that he was cured by him through sorcery. They do not say this openly, but implicitly, with an appearance of devotion. They attempt this by saying, Give God the praise. As if to say: Your sight has been given to you. But only God can do this. Therefore, you should not attribute this to anyone but God, and not to this man, that is, Christ, because if you do this you are indicating that you have not received the gift of your healing from God, for the reason that God does not perform miracles through sinners. Thus they add, we know that this man is a sinner. But, as Augustine says, if he had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but rather, being ungrateful, would be blaspheming. But in truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, we know that this man is a sinner; for above (8:46), they could not convict him of sin, and he said: "which of you convicts me of sin?" And no wonder, because "He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips" (1 Pet 2:22).

The man, that he might neither expose himself to calumny, nor at the same time conceal the truth, answers not that he knew Him to be righteous, but, Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not.

That man says: Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. As if to say: I do not judge the author, but I acknowledge the benefit. Augustine: "He neither favors calumny nor conceals the truth." The blind man responded wisely, according to that saying of Ecclesiasticus 5: "If you have understanding, answer your neighbor; but if not, let your hand be upon your mouth, lest you be caught in an undisciplined word and be confounded."

But it seems that the blind man lied, because below he shows that he was not a sinner. The response is twofold: first, from Chrysostom, that "I do not know" means: I do not pronounce on this now; or "I do not know," because I am ignorant of his life — inasmuch as I was a blind man who had never seen him nor followed him.

The benefit which the man formerly blind had received from Christ appears to have been twofold: his understanding was in some way enlightened at the same time as his bodily eyes, and as he possesses the, light of the physical sun in his fleshly eyes, so the intellectual beam, I mean the illumination by the Spirit, takes up its abode within him, and he receives it into his heart. For hear how he resists the abominable conduct of the magistrates out of his great love towards Christ, and how cleverly he reproaches them as being well-nigh intoxicated and beside themselves. But he frames h.is speech with proper respectfulness, and giving them their due honour as the ruling order, courteously says: Whether He he a sinner, I know not. We do not argue from this that the man was unaware that Jesus was not a sinner, but shall rather suppose that he so addressed those men with the following design. For he may be imagined to speak thus. Though compelled against my will to acquiesce in what is wrong, I will not endure to slander my Benefactor: I will not join myself to those who wish to dishonour Him Who deserves all honour: I will not say that such a Wonderworker is a sinner: I will not give an unjust vote against One Who is mighty to work the works of God. The miracle wrought in me does not permit me to consent to your words: I was blind and I see. It is not another man's account of His doings that I have believed: I am not carried away by the reports of mere strangers: it is not cures effected upon others that I am led to admire. I myself, he says, am a proof of His power: I stand here seeing, having been formerly blind, as a sort of monument, exhibiting the excellence of His love for men, and flashing forth the greatness of His Divine power. Something like this I conceive to be the real significance of the words used by him who had received his sight. For to say: Whether he be a sinner I know not; and immediately to add: One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see, is not in the style of a simple statement, but shows a deeper meaning of very wise reasoning.

"He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

Surely the blind man was not terrified? That be far from him. How then doth he who said, "He is a Prophet", now say, "Whether he be a sinner, I know not"? He said so, not as being in such a state of mind, nor as having persuaded himself of this thing, but desiring to clear Him from their charges by the testimony of the fact, not by his own declaration, and to make the defense credible, when the testimony of the good deed done should decide the matter against them. Since if after many words when the blind man said, "Except this were a righteous man he could not do such miracles", they were so enraged as to reply, "Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us?" what would they not have said, if he had spoken so from the beginning; what would they not have done? "Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not"; as though he had said, "I say nothing in this man's favor, I make no declaration at present, yet this I certainly know and would affirm, that if he were a sinner he could not have done such things." Thus he kept himself free from suspicion, and his testimony uncorrupted, as not speaking from partiality, but as bearing witness according to the fact.

He says, in effect, I do not want to declare what I do not know; nor can I keep silent or hide what I know. I really do not know whether he is what you say he is. In fact, I did not come to know him as a sinner. I was blind, and through my hope I received sight; I know this first of all. It is up to you to judge whether a sinner can do that, because this is what you assert he is.He gave a quite prudent answer by moderating his words so that he might not appear to be in disagreement with those who questioned him. Through his silence he nonetheless suggested that [Jesus] could not have done what he did if he really were a sinner.

The blind man says: "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know, and I am not now examining this, nor do I affirm it. But I know very clearly that He performed a miracle upon me." So let this matter be considered on its own and give an understanding of Him.

1337 Here we see the steadfastness of the blind man. For amazed at the hardness of the Pharisees, and impatient with what they were saying, he says, in all truth, Whether he is a sinner, I do not know.

Yet because he had said before that "He is a prophet," is he not now saying, Whether he is a sinner I do not know, out of fear, as if he were doubtful? Not at all! Rather, he is angry and mocking the Pharisees. He is saying in effect: You say that he is a sinner; but I do not know that he is a sinner, and I am amazed that you say this, because he accomplished a work which does not seem to be the work of a sinner, because though I was blind, now I see, by his kindness. According to Augustine, he said this in order not to be maligned nor to conceal the truth. For perhaps if he had said, "I know that he is a just man," which was true, they would have maligned him. But according to Chrysostom, he said this to give them a more impressive testimony to the miracle, and to make his answer believable by calling attention to the gift itself he received.

"Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?" See how bold one becomes who is filled with light; see how the blind was not afraid of the Jews his parents fear. To wit, they interrogated him as to what good they might gain from his answers; not, of course, that they might themselves receive sight, but that they might draw him to say something that might furnish them with the means of accusing him, namely Christ, because he made clay and anointed the blind man's eyes.

"Will ye also be his disciples?" What means this "also," save as if he said, Already I am: will ye also be? Contumely to them, health to the man.

They therefore said to him: What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? They attempt to draw him back by cunning; therefore they maliciously inquire, so that they might raise some objection against the miracle. Chrysostom: "They scrutinize the manner of the cure, like dogs investigating on every side." But in this cunning they are rebuked by the blind man; therefore he refuses to respond, but reproves them.

They again resort to questioning, and inquire about the manner of the Divine sign; not doing this out of good feeling or a laudable curiosity, but placing and reckoning the speaking well of Christ by any living being as baser than any villainy and worse than any wickedness, they stir up all these matters afresh; thinking perhaps that the man would no more repeat the same words, but would vary his account of the event, and say something inconsistent with his former answers, so that they might lay hold of the contradiction and denounce him as an impostor and a liar. For, supercilious in their excessive cleverness, they imagined the force of the miracle to depend on the mere words of the man, as though it were not evident from the fact of what had been done. And moreover, I think that they may have experienced something of this sort: such as are not backward in hating others unjustly, when they are making inquiries about anything done by them which does not seem to have been rightly done, wish to hear it from the witnesses not once only but over and over again, whetting as it were into keener action the anger which seems too feeble. For, conscience, ever testing our motives, makes us uncomfortable, and ceases not to accuse us of injustice, even though from passionate prejudice we may feel a certain pleasure in the unjust action. The man who had been healed is accordingly provoked and urged against his will to go over the story again and to answer the same questions, while they almost make signs to one another to observe closely whether something illegal might not have been done in the working of this Divine sign on the sabbath. For conscience checks the savage design that rages within them, and (so to speak) puts a bridle on them, though they are unwilling to admit its interference.

"What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?"

What was his reply? Having conquered and cast them down, he no longer speaks to them submissly. As long as the matter needed enquiry and arguments he spake guardedly, while he supplied the proof; but when he had conquered and gained a splendid victory, he then takes courage, and tramples upon them. What saith he?

"I have told you once, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again?"

Seest thou the bold-speaking of a beggar towards Scribes and Pharisees? So strong is truth, so weak is falsehood. Truth, though she take hold but of ordinary men, maketh them to appear glorious; the other, even though it be with the strong, shows them weak. What he saith is of this kind: "Ye give no heed to my words, therefore I will no longer speak or answer you continually, who question me to no purpose, and who do not desire to hear in order to learn, but that you may insult over my words."

"Will ye also be His disciples?"

Now he hath ranked himself among the band of disciples, for the "will ye also?" is the expression of one who is declaring himself to be a disciple. Then he mocked and annoyed them abundantly. For since he knew that this struck them hard, he said it, wishing to upbraid them with exceeding severity; the act of a soul courageous, soaring on high and despising their madness, pointing out the greatness of this dignity, in which he was very confident, and showing that they insulted him who was a man worthy to be admired, but that he took not the insult to himself, but grasped as an honor what they offered as a reproach.

When they again asked him "what did He do to you," placing blame on the Savior for having performed the anointing with clay on the Sabbath, this man understood that they were asking not for the sake of inquiry but for accusation.

1338 They again question the man born blind in order to malign him. First, we have the cunning interrogation of the Pharisees; and secondly, the contemptuous reply of the blind man (v 27).

1339 He says, with respect to the first, They said to him: What did he do to you? The blind man had said that he had received his sight from Christ, which the Pharisees had not asked about. It was their intention to malign Christ, so they now ask rather how he did it. So they did not ask "How is it that you see?" but How did he open your eyes? It was like saying: "He did this by some trick or sorcery, didn't he?" "Those who seek my hurt speak of ruin, and meditate treachery all the day long" (Ps 38:12).

(Tr. xliv. s. 11) Will ye also? i. e. I am already, do ye wish to be? I see now, but do not envy (video, non invideo). He says this in indignation at the obstinacy of the Jews; not tolerating blindness, now that he is no longer blind himself.

He answered them: I have already told you, and you heard; why do you wish to hear it again? As if to say: if you inquire maliciously, I will not respond; but if earnestly, I will respond; whence he says: Do you also wish to become his disciples? As if to say: I believe that you do not wish it; but if you did wish it, I would tell you again; heeding that saying of Proverbs 9: "He who instructs a mocker brings injury upon himself."

Would ye also become His disciples?

He has now confessed distinctly, and without any evasion, that he has been made a disciple, if not by argument yet in consequence of the marvellous deed; and has become a believer, accepting his miraculous sight in the place of instruction. For when he said to them: Would ye also become His disciples? he as it were revealed his own condition of mind, that he was not only willing to become, but actually had already become, a disciple. And in some degree even before he had fulness of faith, acting upon the precept: Freely ye received, freely give, he was prepared at once and very unselfishly to communicate his advantages to them. He affirms unhesitatingly and often his account of the marvellous deed, if they had only considered his narrative really as instruction. He certainly therefore observed in an excellent way that in the Book of Proverbs: He speaketh in the ears of them that hear.

It seems probable that some deep and hidden meaning is obscurely intimated in these words of his, and I will briefly state what it is. There were some of the magistrates who recognised that the Wonder-worker was in truth Christ, but keeping their knowledge of Him buried (so to speak) within their hearts, they as yet were unsuspected by the majority of their companions. And our witness will be the wise Evangelist himself, where he says that the rulers knew that He was the Christ, hut hecause of the Pharisees they did not confess it. The proofs of this will be strengthened also to some extent by Nicodemus, boldly exclaiming and saying to Our Lord Jesus Christ: Rabbi, we know that Thou art a Teacher come from God, and that no man can do these signs that Thou doest, except God be with Him. Certainly therefore some of the rulers knew, and the report of this was spread abroad throughout all Jerusalem. The majority of the Jews suspected that the rulers knew, but were determined not to confess it through malice and envy; and that this also is true, we will show from the evangelical writings themselves. For the blessed John himself somewhere says that Jesus stood teaching in the very temple and explaining things which, at least to the understanding of His hearers, seemed to be breaking the law. And when the magistrates of the Jews did not proceed at all against Him, nay, did not venture so much as to say: "O fellow, cease teaching what does not harmonize with our ancient laws," they brought suspicion on themselves among the multitudes as we have just observed. Thus for instance it is written: Some of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this He Whom they seek to kill? And lo, He speaketh openly and they say nothing unto Him. Can it he that the rulers know that this is the Christ? Surely he all but says, "Those whose lot it is to be leaders know that He is indeed the Christ; see, although they are generally considered to be desirous of killing Him, He is speaking with very great boldness and they do not rebuke Him even so much as by words." Accordingly, this suspicion being spread abroad through all Jerusalem, the blind man had at some time heard it, and had this report about these men ringing in his ears. Gracefully therefore reproving them, as we may suppose, he says: "Surely it is to no purpose that ye bid me again utter the same words and again speak the praise of the marvellous deed: or do ye indeed consider the narrative a pleasure, thirsting even now for instruction from Him, although, overcome by fear of others, ye allow ungrateful cowardice to stand in the way of such excellent knowledge?"

He answered them, I told yon even now, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again?

It seems superfluous now, he says, to tell the story over again to an incredulous audience, and it is useless for you to inquire so often concerning these things, when you do not gain anything whatever, although you learn and have conclusive evidence. But you bid me now again reiterate the same words for no good purpose, as experience proclaims. For hereby the man who had been healed thoroughly convicts the Pharisees of unreasonableness, of turning away their ears from the truth, as it is written, not being laudably angry at the law being broken, but by these questions bidding him who wished to speak well of the Wonder-worker to appear in the character of an accuser, rather than accepting him as an admirer. For this was in truth their aim, since the transgression of the law was altogether a matter of indifference to them, and passed over as quite unimportant. On this account they set aside just judgment and were only bent on gratifying their prejudice; forgetting God, Who says: The priest's lips shall guard judgment and they shall seek the law at his mouth.

He answered them with reproach: "I do not wish to speak with you any longer, for I have told you many times, and you did not listen." Then, what could especially sting them, he adds: "Do you also want to become His disciples?" Clearly, he himself desires to be His disciple. Jesting and laughing at them, he says this calmly; and this shows a bold and fearless soul, not afraid of their fury.

1340 Now the man's answer is given. The man born blind, because he really had received his sight, answers them further, not timidly, but with boldness. He first belittles the repeated questioning of the Pharisees, saying, I have told you already and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? This was like saying: I told you once. Why do you want to hear it again? That's foolish! It looks like you are not paying attention to what I am saying. So, I have nothing further to say to you because your questioning is useless, and you want to cavil rather than learn. "He who tells a story to a fool tells it to a drowsy man; and at the end he will say: 'What is it'" (Sir 22:8).

Secondly, he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, Do you too want to become his disciples? When someone carefully investigates a matter, he does so either with a good intention, to accept it, or with an evil intention, to condemn it. Now because the Pharisees were carefully investigating this, and because the man born blind did not dare impute an evil intention to them, he takes the alternative, saying, Do you too want to become his disciples? He means by this: If you are not investigating this maliciously, you therefore wish to join him: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23). As Augustine says: The one who had received his sight gladly desired to give them light. Thus, he significantly says, you too, implying that he himself was a disciple. He is saying in effect: Do you want to become his disciples as I am? I already see, and do not envy your coming to the light. And as Chrysostom says, from the steadfastness of the blind man we can see how strong truth really is, for when it convinces the lowly, it makes them noble and strong. And we can see how weak is a lie, which even if it is maintained by the powerful, shows and makes them weak.

"They reviled him, and said, Be thou his disciple: we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not whence he is." "We know that God spake unto Moses." And whence know ye that? Because Moses wrote of Me, as the Lord Himself said; and Moses, did I believe, ye would believe Me also: for Moses wrote of me. Thus, then, the servant was believed, the Lord despised; and yet, in truth, the Lord was believed from whom this same servant was believed.

(Tr. xliv. 12) A malediction only in the intention of the speakers, not in the words themselves. May such a malediction (ἐλοιδόρησαν, maledixerunt, Vulg.) be upon us, and upon our children! It follows: But we are Moses' disciples. But ye should have known, that our Lord was prophesied of by Moses, after hearing what He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. (c. 5:46) Do ye follow then a servant, and turn your back on the Lord?

They reviled him therefore and said: Be you his disciple, that is, by cursing and reviling they said to him that he was Christ's disciple. Augustine: "Let this curse be upon me: let such a curse be upon us and upon our children." They despised the discipleship of Christ and preferred to it the discipleship of Moses; hence they say: We are Moses' disciples, not of this man; and they add the reason.

They attempt to draw him back by reproaches: Hence they proceed gradually.

We almost see the Evangelist smile as he says this. For he beholds those whose lot it was to hold sacred offices degraded in mental stupor so far as to make an object of reviling that which was so excellent, namely discipleship under Christ; smitten with a worthy love of which, some of the saints say: How sweet are Thy words unto my throat, sweeter than honey and honeycomb unto my mouth. And again another, as if speaking to Our Lord Jesus the Christ concerning those that disobey Him, says: Consume them, and Thy word shall be to me a pleasure and delight, yea the joy of my heart. But they attach no value to His sacred words, and think that one who is being instructed by Him is worthy of blame even on that account alone; and holding so far true opinions even against themselves, they speak of the Christ as the blind man's teacher, and Moses as their own. For in very truth the Gentiles were illuminated by Christ through the Evangelical teaching, and Israel died in the types given by Moses and was buried in the shadow of the letter. Wherefore also Paul somewhere says of them: Unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. And there is no doubt that it was as a type of the Gentiles that we were as in a picture delineating the history of the blind man, fashioning, as in a type, the incidents connected with him to express the truth concerning them.

Yet this also is signified, that to suffer reproach for Christ's sake is a thing delightful and most honourable; for the very means by which those who do not shrink from becoming persecutors think to vex those who love Him, become (though the persecutors know it not) sources of joy to them. Yea, those who persecute Christians cause their excellence to shine more conspicuously, and do not |44 so easily succeed in causing them injury. The abandoned Pharisees then, disparaging as seems probable themselves more than Christ, say of the blind man: Thou art His disciple; and being elated and puffed up with pride, foolishly say of themselves: But we are disciples of Moses.

"Thou art his disciple, but we are Moses' disciples."

"But this cannot be. Ye are neither Moses' nor this Man's; for were ye Moses', ye would become this Man's also." Wherefore Christ before said unto them, because they were continually betaking themselves to these speeches, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me."

"We know that God spake unto Moses."

By whose word, whose report? "That of our forefathers," saith one. Is not He then more to be believed than your forefathers, who confirmeth by miracles that He came from God, and that He speaketh things from above? They said not, "We have heard that God spake to Moses," but, "We know." Do ye affirm, O Jews, what ye have by hearing, as knowing it, but deem what ye have by sight as less certain than what ye have by hearing? Yet the one ye saw not, but heard, the other ye did not hear, but saw.

To His reproach they say: "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses." And here too they clearly lie. For if they were disciples of Moses, they would also be disciples of Christ, as He Himself says to them: "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me" (Jn. 5:46).

1341 Next, the Pharisees revile the man born blind. First, we see them revile him; then, secondly, the defense of the blind man (v 30). He does two things concerning the first: first, he presents the revilement of the Pharisees; secondly, the reason behind it (v 28b).

1342 With respect to the first he says, and they reviled him, saying, You are his disciple. This is, indeed, scornful, if you consider their vicious hearts. But if you consider their words, it is the greatest blessing. May we and our children be treated with such scorn! "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples" (Jn 8:31). Still, the Evangelist stated that they reviled him by saying this because what they said came from their evil hearts: "Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are smooth lips with an evil heart" (Prov 26:23). We read about this revilement in the Psalm 109 (v 28): "let them curse, but do thou bless"; and in Matthew (5:11): "Blessed are you when men revile you."

1343 He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are disciples of Moses. They were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man born blind when he asked if they wanted to become Christ's disciples; for they took pride in being disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they set forth their own situation, saying, we are disciples of Moses. But this pride of theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his commands: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me" (Jn 5:46); this was like saying: You do not follow the servant [Moses], and later go against his Lord.

(Tr. xliv. 12) We know that God spake unto Moses. As for this fellow, we know not whence He is.

We know that God spoke to Moses, as is said in Exodus and Leviticus almost throughout: Exodus thirty-three: "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face." But as for this man, we know not whence he is: therefore we are disciples of the one whom the Lord approves. But nevertheless they spoke falsely, because, as is said above in chapter five, "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also." And in this cursing they do not prevail against the blind man; rather he refutes the reasoning of their curse in this, that they said they did not know Christ.

Boldly do they speak again, armed with that folly which is so familiar and dear to them; and in undiminished shamelessness they once more boastfully exclaim: We know. And when they add: that God hath spoken unto Moses, thereby recognising that he deserved great honour, they in another way again insult him, seeing that they take no account of his precepts. For they ignorantly condemn One Whom as yet they know not, or rather they dishonour Him in spite of what they have learnt concerning Him, although the Law forbids them to act unjustly and quarrelsomely towards any or to judge at all in this way. Something of this sort they say again now: "confessedly God hath spoken unto Moses; there is no sufficient reason for any to be in doubt on this point; He enacted laws by him, and laid down regulations how every thing is to be done. Certainly therefore, he says, he is a transgressor of the sacred Scriptures, who has contrary opinions to those expressed by Moses: and manifestly the law concerning the sabbath has been broken, for thou wast healed on the sabbath: it is righteous not to acknowledge one who is detected in this matter and therefore condemned. Now we have good reason to say that He has not observed the Divine law." Then, when they say of Christ: We know not whence He is, they surely do not say so as being ignorant Who or whence He was, for they are elsewhere found publicly confessing that they know all about Him. Is not this the carpenter's Son, Whose father and mother we know? How then doth He say, I am come down out of heaven? Certainly therefore we can not accept this statement: We know not whence He is, as indicative of ignorance, |45 but we shall look upon it as the expression of the arrogance which was in them. For, throwing contempt on their own previous judgment, and setting it altogether at naught, they make this statement concerning Him. Perhaps indeed their words indicate that they argued as follows; for it is only fair to their arguments that we should scrutinise them more carefully. "We know," say they, "that God has spoken unto Moses: certainly therefore we must believe without hesitation what was spoken by him, and observe the commandments given him from God. But this Man we know not, for God hath not spoken unto Him, nor have we recognised any such thing with regard to Him." But the Pharisees, wont to be wise in their own conceit, and boasting much of their knowledge of the Divine word, ought to have considered that God the Father thus speaks, when by the all-wise Moses He proclaims the future advent of Jesus: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak unto them as I shall command Him. And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever that Prophet shall speak in My Name, I will take vengeance on him. Surely any one might have rebuked the Jews with good reason, and said: O ye who only know how to disbelieve, if ye are so readily persuaded by the words of Moses, because God hath spoken unto him, ought ye not to believe Christ in the same way, when ye hear Him publicly declaring: The words that I say unto you are not Mine, but the Father's Who sent Me; and again: I speak not from Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He hath given Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Certainly therefore the words of the Pharisees are a mere excuse, a fiction of vain reasoning. For if they say they ought rather to follow Moses, on this account, that God spake to him; why do they not think similarly with regard to Christ, when He distinctly says what we have just mentioned? But while in part they honour the law, and pretend to hold God's will in high esteem, in another way they violate it and dishonour it greatly by refusing to accept its proclamation concerning their time, that namely which was announced by it concerning Christ, that by His Incarnation He should appear in the character of a Prophet.

They did not say "we have heard," but rather "we know that God spoke with Moses," even though this was passed down to them by their ancestors. About what they received by hearsay, they say "we know for certain," yet the One whose miracles they saw with their own eyes, and whose Divine and heavenly teaching they heard themselves, they call a deceiver (Jn. 7:12). Do you see to what madness their malice drove them?

1343 He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are disciples of Moses. They were thinking of how they were ridiculed by the man born blind when he asked if they wanted to become Christ's disciples; for they took pride in being disciples of Moses, whom they thought was greater. First, they set forth their own situation, saying, we are disciples of Moses. But this pride of theirs is false, because they neither followed Moses nor fulfilled his commands: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me" (Jn 5:46); this was like saying: You do not follow the servant [Moses], and later go against his Lord.

Secondly, they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, we know that God has spoken to Moses. Here they are telling the truth, for as we read: "The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Ex 33:11); and "If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth" (Num 12:6). Thus God spoke to Moses in a more excellent way than to the other prophets. And it is about this that they are speaking. However, it is clear that since God spoke his Word to Moses, the dignity of Moses came from the Word of God. And so the Word of God is of greater dignity than Moses: "Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honor than the house" (Heb 3:3).

Thirdly, they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, as for this man, Christ, we do not know where he comes from. This is true, but not the way they understood it: for they did not know the Father, and Christ was from the Father: "you know neither me nor my Father" (8:19). But their statement is false as they understood it, for when they said, we do not know where he comes from, they meant he had no authority and was unverified, so that it was not clear whether or not he came from God. They seem to be applying to him the words of Jeremiah: "I did not send you prophets, yet they ran" (23:21).

"The man answered and said unto them, Herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man is a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth." He speaks still as one only anointed. For God heareth even sinners. For if God heard not sinners, in vain would the publican, casting his eyes on the ground, and smiting on his breast, have said, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner." And that confession merited justification, as this blind man enlightenment. "Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing." With frankness, constancy, and truthfulness [he spoke]. For these things that were done by the Lord, by whom were they done but by God? Or when would such things be done by disciples, were not the Lord dwelling in them?

The man answered and said to them: In this indeed is a marvelous thing, that you know not whence he is, and he opened my eyes. He did not say impious, lest he provoke them, but marvelous, because he himself marveled at their hardness; and he gives the reason, because they see a most evident sign and do not believe. Therefore that saying of Isaiah six is verified: "That seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand."

I am astonished, he says, and very justly, that you say you do not know One Who is borne witness to by such holiness and by the Divine power shown in His actions; yet you are thought to incessantly give attention to God's teaching, you administer the law, you make the verbal study of the sacred Words your great delight, you possess the chief power among the people and especially may be expected to know who are good teachers. For who ought to rightly know those who by God's power work wonders, if they do not who are appointed to minister in holy things and who have been put in charge of the venerable mysteries? And by saying that he is astonished that they are altogether ignorant respecting the Divine sign, so wonderful and strange, which had been wrought upon him, the man covertly and by implication rebukes them, hinting that they were so far removed from sanctification and fitness for piety, that they shamelessly confessed themselves utterly ignorant of Him Who is truly holy, that is, Christ.

For let us lay bare what we believe to have been the concealed thought. If that is true which is somewhere well said: Every beast loveth his like, and a man will cleave to his like, how then if they were holy and good did they turn away and refuse to cleave to Him Who was holy and good? Certainly therefore that which was spoken was pregnant with a rebuke of the accursed policy and behaviour of the Pharisees. And I think another thing also will help to make this manifest. For I think that the diligent student who devotes his attention to such expressions will perceive more distinctly that which seems to be hidden in each. What then is this? Many rumours went about through all Judaea concerning our Saviour Christ, but they spoke of Him only as a Prophet. For thus the Law prophesied that He would come, saying: The Lord our God will raise up a Prophet from among your brethren; yet they hoped that when He was revealed in His proper time He would instruct them in things above the Law, and by unfolding the truer intent of the Lawgiver would educate them in worthier wise. And thou needest not wonder that there was among the Jews such a hope and opinion, when even among the other nations the same opinion was spread abroad. For instance even that Samaritan woman said: We know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ): when He is come, He will declare unto us all things. Most clearly therefore the Jews knew that Christ would come, (for this is what Messiah meaneth), and would interpret to them the higher counsel of God; and moreover that He would also open the eyes of the blind was declared by Isaiah, who says distinctly: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened. But there was also another opinion prevalent in Jerusalem, forasmuch as the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Ineffable Son of God the Father as quite unrecognised, saying: Who shall declare His generation? The Jews, here also distorting the force of the words in accordance with their own notions, imagined that the Christ would be altogether unrecognised, no one whatever knowing whence He was: although the Divine Scriptures establishes for us very evidently His birth in the flesh, and therefore exclaims: Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son. And that the mind of the Jews in this again was uneducated as regards the comprehension of essential truths, when they supposed that the Christ would be unrecognised, it is easy to see, from what the blessed Evangelist John declared to be evident concerning Him, when speaking to them of Jerusalem. For some of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this He Whom they seek to kill? And lo, He speaketh openly, and they say nothing unto Him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ? Howbeit we know this Man whence He is: but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence He is.

While the Jews therefore are thus absurdly laying down these opinions concerning Christ, the man who had been blind already forms [right] ideas about Him, quickly drawing inferences from the marvellous deed, and all but seizes on the words of the Pharisees in confirmation of his own reasoning. For he says: Why, herein is the miracle, that ye know not whence He is, and yet He opened mine eyes. Two signs, he says, I have, and very clear ones, of His being the Christ. For ye know not whence He is, but yet He opened mine eyes. Certainly therefore this is evidently He Who was foretold by the Law, and borne witness to by the voice of Prophets.

Let our opponents-that is, they who speak against their own salvation-inform us [as to this point]: The deceased daughter of the high priest; the widow's dead son, who was being carried out [to burial] near the gate [of the city]; and Lazarus, who had lain four days in the tomb,-in what bodies did they rise again? In those same, no doubt, in which they had also died. For if it were not in the very same, then certainly those same individuals who had died did not rise again. For [the Scripture] says, "The Lord took the hand of the dead man, and said to him, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And the dead man sat up, and He commanded that something should be given him to eat; and He delivered him to his mother." Again, He called Lazarus "with a loud voice, saying, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth bound with bandages, feet and hands." This was symbolical of that man who had been bound in sins. And therefore the Lord said, "Loose him, and let him depart." As, therefore, those who were healed were made whole in those members which had in times past been afflicted; and the dead rose in the identical bodies, their limbs and bodies receiving health, and that life which was granted by the Lord, who prefigures eternal things by temporal, and shows that it is He who is Himself able to extend both healing and life to His handiwork, that His words concerning its [future] resurrection may also be believed; so also at the end, when the Lord utters His voice "by the last trumpet," the dead shall be raised, as He Himself declares: "The hour shall come, in which all the dead which are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; those that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

"Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not whence He is, and He doeth such miracles."

"That a Man, who is not one of the distinguished or noble or illustrious among you, can do such things; so that it is in every way clear that He is God, needing no human aid."

"You," he says, "Jews, reject my Healer because you supposedly do not know where He is from. But I say that He is all the more worthy of admiration because, not being among the notable and distinguished people among you, He can accomplish such deeds that clearly testify that He possesses some higher power and has no need of any human assistance."

1344 Now, the blind man's argument against the Pharisees is presented. First, he is amazed at their hardness of heart; secondly, he refutes their false opinion (v 31).

1345 Concerning the first, we must recall that we are not amazed at what happens frequently, and in the usual way; but we are amazed at what is unusual and great, whether this be good or evil. We are struck by unusual and great good: "you are wonderful, my Lord, and your countenance is full of grace," as we read in Esther [15:17]. We are also amazed at great evil: "Be appalled, O heavens, at this—for my people have committed two evils" (Jer 2:12). In line with this, the blind man says in answer, Why this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from. He is saying in effect: It would not be remarkable if you regarded someone insignificant and like me as having no authority. But it is extremely amazing that you can see an explicit and evident sign of divine power in Christ and say that you do not know where he comes from, especially because he did open my eyes.

(Tr. xliv. s. 13) As yet however He speaks as one but just anointed, for God hears sinners too. Else in vain would the publican cry, God be merciful to me a sinner. (Luke 18:13) By that confession he obtained justification, as the blind man had his sight.

We know that God does not hear sinners: whence Isaiah one, the Lord to sinners: "When you multiply prayer, I will not hear"; Job eight: "God will not cast away the simple, nor extend his hand to the wicked." But if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, him he hears: below in chapter fifteen: "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you"; First John three: "We have confidence toward God, that whatever we ask, we receive, because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing before him." But this one he especially hears; and he proves this.

It is asked: Did God not hear the publican? The response is twofold, from the Gloss: in the first way, so that emphasis falls on what he says: he does not hear sinners, because he does not hear those persisting in sin — unto salvation, that is. The Gloss responds in another way, that the blind man had not yet been anointed nor inwardly illuminated, and therefore he spoke falsely, although he believed he was speaking the truth.

Since, therefore, the Lord threatens these torments, these punishments in the day of judgment, to those who obey the devil and sacrifice to idols, how does he think that he can act as a priest of God who has obeyed and served the priests of the devil; or how does he think that his hand can be transferred to the sacrifice of God and the prayer of the Lord which has been captive to sacrilege and to crime, when in the sacred Scriptures God forbids the priests to approach to sacrifice even if they have been in lighter guilt; and says in Leviticus: "The man in whom there shall be any blemish or stain shall not approach to offer gifts to God? " Also in Exodus: "And let the priests which come near to the Lord God sanctify themselves, lest perchance the Lord forsake them." And again: "And when they come near to minister at the altar of the Holy One, they shall not bring sin upon them, lest they die." Those, therefore, who have brought grievous sins upon themselves, that is, who, by sacrificing to idols, have offered sacrilegious sacrifices, cannot claim to themselves the priesthood of God, nor make any prayer for their brethren in His sight; since it is written in the Gospel, "God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth." Nevertheless the profound gloom of the falling darkness has so blinded the hearts of some, that they receive no light from the wholesome precepts, but, once turned away from the direct path of the true way, they are hurried headlong and suddenly by the night and error of their sins.

Since these things are announced and are made plain to us, it is necessary that our obedience should wait upon the divine precepts; nor in matters of this kind can human indulgence accept any man's person, or yield anything to any one, when the divine prescription has interfered, and establishes a law. For we ought not to be forgetful what the Lord spoke to the Jews by Isaiah the prophet, rebuking, and indignant that they had despised the divine precepts and followed human doctrines. "This people," he says, honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is widely removed from me; but in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men." This also the Lord repeats in the Gospel, and says, "Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may establish your own tradition." Having which things before our eyes, and solicitously and religiously considering them, we ought in the ordinations of priests to choose none but unstained and upright ministers, who, holily and worthily offering sacrifices to God, may be heard in the prayers which they make for the safety of the Lord's people, since it is written, "God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth." On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God's priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear.

But, moreover, the very interrogation which is put in baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, "Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church? "we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church, and that among heretics, where there is no Church, sins cannot be put away. Therefore they who assert that heretics can baptize, must either change the interrogation or maintain the truth; unless indeed they attribute a church also to those who, they contend, have baptism. It is also necessary that he should be anointed who is baptized; so that, having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed of God, and have in him the grace of Christ. Further, it is the Eucharist whence the baptized are anointed with the oil sanctified on the altar. But he cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither an altar nor a church; whence also there can be no spiritual anointing among heretics, since it is manifest that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated at all among them. But we ought to know and remember that it is written, "Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head," which the Holy Spirit before forewarned in the Psalms, lest any one going out of the way and wandering from the path of truth should be anointed by heretics and adversaries of Christ. Besides, what prayer can a priest who is impious and a sinner offer for a baptized person? since it is written, "God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth." Who, moreover, can give what he himself has not? or how can he discharge spiritual functions who himself has lost the Holy Spirit? And therefore he must be baptized and renewed who comes untrained to the Church, that he may be sanctified within by those who are holy, since it is written, "Be ye holy, for I am holy, saith the Lord." So that he who has been seduced into error, and baptized outside of the Church, should lay aside even this very thing in the true and ecclesiastical baptism, viz., that he a man coming to God, while he seeks for a priest, fell by the deceit of error upon a profane one.

Lucius of Membresa said: It is written, "God heareth not a sinner." How can a heretic who is a sinner be heard in baptism?

Having already in some measure shown his delight in the proclamations made by the Prophets and the Law as now fulfilled, both in its being unknown whence Christ was, and in the eyes of the blind being opened, he collects for himself aids to faith from every quarter, and thus discovers something else also. Starting from necessary and acknowledged principles, he makes a show of going on to the inquiry as to what is profitable and fitting, and constructs what may be termed a piece of reasoning well-pleasing to God. For he maintains, and surely there are good grounds for so thinking, that the God Who loves justice and virtue never hears those who love sin; and laying this down as indisputable and universally acknowledged, he introduces as a contrast the opposite statement as true, and as gainsaid in no quarter, I mean of course that everywhere and always the Lord of all listens to such as are habitually pious. And although the conclusion to be drawn was designed to refer to the Christ alone, it was so constructed as if it had reference to a general and universal principle. For as I have already pointed out by anticipation, the man who had been blind has an unworthy conception of Christ and has not yet learnt accurately that He is by nature God; so that he thinks and speaks of Him as a Prophet, to Whom he might without blame ascribe piety: but this does not rightly apply to Christ at all, because He is by nature God, receiving the worship of the pious as it were a spiritual sacrifice.

"We know that God heareth not sinners."

Since they had been the first to say, "How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" he now brings forward even their judgment, reminding them of their own words. "This opinion," saith he, "is common to me and you. Stand fast now to it." And observe, I pray you, his wisdom. He turns about the miracle in every way, because they could not do away with it, and from it he draws his inferences. Seest thou that at first he said "Whether he be a sinner or not, I know not"? not doubting (God forbid!) but knowing that He was not a sinner. At least now, when he had an opportunity, see how he defended Him. "We know that God heareth not sinners":

"But if any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth His will."

Here he not only hath cleared Him from sin, but declareth that He is very pleasing to God, and doeth all His will. For since they called themselves worshipers of God, he added, "and doeth His will"; "since," saith he, "it is not sufficient to know God: men must also do His will." Then he magnifies what had been done...

Then, since previously some of them had said: "How can a sinful man perform such miracles," he too takes up this condemnation of theirs and reminds them of their own words. "We all know," he says, "that God does not listen to sinners, but listens to the one who honors Him and does His will." Note from this how he not only removes sins from the Lord, but also presents Him as a great pleaser of God and one who does everything according to His will, when he says: "If anyone honors God and does His will." Some indulge in cold and subtle disputation. "How," they say, "is it said that God does not hear sinners? He is the Lover of mankind. What, then, do the words 'God does not hear sinners' mean here?" Such a question would not even deserve an answer. Nevertheless, it must be said that by these words — "God does not hear sinners" — the thought expressed is that God does not grant sinners the power to work miracles. For the Spirit of God will not dwell in a body burdened with sins. But those who sincerely and from the heart ask forgiveness of their sins, God hears not as sinners but as penitents. For at the very moment they ask forgiveness, they have already passed from the ranks of sinners into the ranks of the penitent. Therefore it is rightly said that God does not hear sinners. He does not grant sinners the grace to work miracles either. For even if they were ever to ask for something of the sort, how would He grant what is asked to those whom He hates for the very reason that they lay claim to what is entirely unfitting for them? And if He hears those who ask forgiveness, He hears them not as sinners but as penitents. Having said "if anyone honors God," he added "and does His will." For many honor God but do not fulfill the will of God. But both must be present together: both the honoring of God and the fulfillment of God's will — that is, faith and works, or, as the Apostle Paul expressed it, faith and a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:5) — in short, contemplation and action. For faith is truly alive when it is accompanied by God-pleasing works, from which comes a good conscience, just as from evil works comes a corrupt conscience. And again, works are alive when they are accompanied by faith, but separated from one another they are dead, as it is said: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26), and works without faith likewise. Notice, if you will, what boldness truth gives to a poor, entirely unremarkable man, and he rebukes the great and glorious among the Jews. So great is the power of truth, whereas falsehood is very timid and lacking in boldness.

Or, that God heareth not sinners, means, that God does not enable sinners to work miracles. When sinners however implore pardon for their offences, they are translated from the rank of sinners to that of penitents.

1346 The man born blind refutes their false opinion by saying, we know that God does not listen to sinners. He is reasoning this way: Whomever God hears is from God; but God heard Christ; therefore, Christ is from God. He first states his main premise; then the minor premise (v 32); and thirdly, he draws his conclusion (v 33). He does two things about the first: first, he mentions those whom God does not hear; secondly, those he does hear (v 31b).

1347 God does not hear sinners. In regard to this he says, we know that God does not hear sinners. He is saying: Both you and I agree that sinners are not heard by God. Thus a Psalm says, "They cried to the Lord and he did not hear them"; and again, "Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer" (Prov 1:28). But there are statements which contradict this: "If they sin against thee - for there is no man who does not sin - but later repent with all their heart, then hear thou from heaven and forgive thy people" [2 Chron 6:36-39]; and in Luke (18:14) we read that the tax collector "went down to his house justified."

Because of this Augustine says that this blind man is speaking as one who has not been anointed, as one who does not yet have complete knowledge. For God does hear sinners, otherwise it would have been futile for the tax collector to have prayed: "God, be merciful to me a sinner." Accordingly, if we wish to save the statement of the blind man we must say that God does not hear those sinners who persist in their sinning; but he does hear those sinners who are sorry for their sins, and who should be regarded more as repentant than as sinners.

1348 Yet there is a difficulty here. It is clear that miracles are not accomplished by us due to our own power, but through prayer. But sinners often perform miracles: "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name—and do many mighty works in your name?" (Mt 7:22); and yet God did not know them. Thus, what the blind man said does not seem to be true, namely, we know that God does not listen to sinners.

There are two answers to this. The first is general. Prayer has two characteristics, that is, it can obtain [what it asks for] and it can merit. Thus, sometimes it obtains what it asks, and does not merit; at other times, it merits and does not obtain. And so nothing prevents the prayer of a sinner from obtaining what it asks although it does not merit. This is the way that God hears sinners; not as a matter of merit, but they obtain what they ask from the divine power, which they acknowledge. The other answer is special and applies to this particular case, when the miracle that was done makes known the person of Christ.

1349 It should be mentioned that every miracle is a sort of testimony. Sometimes, a miracle is accomplished as a testimony to the truth that is being preached; at other times, it is a testimony to the person performing it. We must also realize that no true miracle happens except by the divine power, and that God is never a witness to a lie. I say, therefore, that whenever a miracle is performed in testimony to a doctrine that is being preached, that doctrine must be true, even if the person who is preaching it is not good. And when it is performed in testimony to the person, it is also necessary that the person be good. Now it is evident that the miracles of Christ were performed in testimony to his person: "The works which the Father has granted me to accomplish—bear me witness that the Father has sent me" (5:36). It was with this meaning that the blind man said that God does not listen to sinners, that is, so that they could perform miracles as a testimony to their supposed holiness.

1350 Then when he says, but if any one is a worshiper of God —he shows that God hears the just through merit. We must realize that the performing of miracles is attributed to faith: "If you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will be done" (Mt 21:21). The reason for this is that miracles are accomplished by the omnipotence of God, on which faith relies. Therefore, whoever wishes to obtain something from God has to have faith: "Let him ask in faith" (Jas 1:6). However, if he wishes to obtain it through merit, he must do God's will. And these two conditions are mentioned here. As to the first, he says, If any one is a worshipper of God by sacrifices and offerings: "They will worship him with sacrifice and burnt offering" (Is 19:21). These belong to the worship of latria, which attests to one's faith. As to the second he says, and does his will by obeying his commandments, God listens to him.

(Tr. xliv. 13) Freely, stedfastly, truly. For how could what our Lord did, be done by any other than God, or by disciples even, except when their Lord dwelt in them?

From the beginning of the world it has not been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind; but this man opened them: therefore he is from God, because from the destruction of the consequent.

Pained as it seems very keenly, and grieving as we may say over their revilings against Christ, so as to be vexed beyond endurance because they contemptuously said; Thou art His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses, he is eager to speak on behalf of his Master; hence he draws a sort of comparison between the achievements of Moses and the brilliant deeds of Our Saviour, showing that as the latter is greater in wonder-working, so far He is the better. For indeed, is it not a matter of course that he who accomplishes the greater work should be in every way superior in glory? Surely it is not to be doubted. And at the same time he probably signifies something of this sort. Whereas a very ancient prophecy foretells and declares thus concerning the coming of Christ: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and no one ever before caused astonishment by having done any such deed; now it has been fulfilled by Him and Him only, Whom you (I know not why, he says) do not scruple to call a sinner. Moreover, a great company of holy prophets are spoken of, and a number not easily computed of just men are mentioned throughout the Sacred Scriptures, but since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. Is it not therefore certain that this is the Christ, Who accomplishes the declarations of the Prophets, Who thoroughly and completely fulfils the things proclaimed of old? For if no other besides Him opens the eyes of the blind, what henceforth shall stand in the way of faith? What shall turn us aside from accepting Him? Or how can we fail, every doubt being cast aside, to attain by the very easiest way the mystery of knowing Him?

Thus in these words also the man who was healed speaks on behalf of the Saviour Christ. And see how cleverly he puts together the argument of his plea. For it would really have been altogether outspoken and frank to say that Christ was better and more illustrious than Moses and the Prophets, but it was not unreasonable to suppose that the Pharisees, frantic at that, would have pretended that they were contending for the saints thus insulted, and with a good excuse would have attempted to punish the man, that he might not live and be looked upon as a monument of Christ's glory and a sort of representative of the Divine power which Christ possessed: wherefore, craftily avoiding the passion that might arise, and depriving their murderous thoughts of this pretext for development, he diverts the application of the argument to what is universal and indefinite, saying: Since the world began that which Christ had wrought upon him had never been done by any one. This was nothing else than showing that Christ was certainly greater and more glorious than all, since He manifested by His actions such power and authority to be possessed by Him, as none of the saints had ever possessed. Thus he crowns his Physician with excellent honour in every thing, taking for justification the marvellous deed never before accomplished or attempted, namely, the removal of blindness.

"Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind."

"If now ye acknowledge that God heareth not sinners, and this Person hath wrought a miracle, and such a miracle as no man ever wrought, it is clear that He hath surpassed all things in virtue, and that His power is greater than belongeth to man."

Furthermore, knowing that they want to obscure the miracle, he preaches about the benefaction with full understanding. If, perhaps, the eyes of the blind were opened, it was not eyes damaged from birth, but from some illness. But what has now taken place is an unheard-of thing.

1351 Here he takes the minor premise of his argument. He is saying: Because of what Christ did, which no man has ever done, it is obvious that he did this by the action of God, and that he has been heard by God: "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:24).

Unless this man were from God, he could do nothing: below in chapter fifteen: "Without me you can do nothing."

It is asked: Many wicked men perform numerous miracles, as the Lord himself says, Matthew seven: "Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name and perform many mighty works in your name?" The response is that the blind man understood that he acted by his own authority; or it can be answered as with the preceding question.

He who had just received sight and been miraculously freed from his old blindness, was quicker to perceive truth than they who had been instructed by the law, for see, see how by very many and wise arguments he demonstrates the utter baseness of the Pharisees' opinion. For when they absurdly said of Christ: As for this Man we know not whence He is, he in reply severely rebukes them for their unfairness of thought, when they deny all knowledge of One Who worked such wonders; it being evident to all that one who was not from God would be unable to do any of those deeds which are only accomplished by Divine energy. For God works such deeds through the saints only, and would never bestow upon a stranger who had not yet entered on the way of godliness the ability to boast of such glories. Else let the dumbfoundered Pharisee come forward and say what is henceforth the distinction with God between the holy and the profane, the just and the sinner, the impious and the devout. For if He enables each equally to become glorious by the same means, there is no longer any distinction, but at once all things are brought into confusion, and we will say with good reason that which is written: How shall we fitly serve Him, and what will be the profit if we appear before Him? For if, as one of the Greek poets said:

Ἴση μοῖρα μένοντι, καὶ εἰ μάλα τις πολεμίζοι, ["The same share is allotted to him who remains at home as to him who fights bravely." Homer, Iliad, ix. 318.]

and the evil and the good are held in equal honour, will it not be useless to experience bitter hardships on account of virtue? But we will not consider that these things are so, and wherefore? Because: Them that honour Me, saith God, I will honour; and he that despiseth Me shall be despised.

For my part, I would ask the self-conceited Pharisees, if God indifferently works such deeds even by the hands of sinners, why the magicians of Egypt did not achieve the same things as the great Moses? Wherefore could they not do equally wonderful works and carry off the same glory as he did? But thou wilt say that Moses' rod when it fell on the ground became a serpent, and those of the magicians became so in like manner. We answer that their rods were not transmuted into serpents, but a deceit was practised, and something which appeared to men like the form of serpents deluded them into error; a certain magical art made their rods look like serpents: whereas Moses' rod was truly changed into a serpent and suddenly |52 received the nature of that beast. And from the distinction which is laid down in the Sacred Scriptures thou wilt see that what I have said is true. For Moses' rod swallowed up their rods: for since the latter were merely in the outward form of serpents, but the former was truly and in nature that which it appeared to be, it was provoked to anger that they should look no longer like rods but like living beings, and devoured them with unheard of power beyond the power of an [ordinary serpent], God rendering such a difficult thing easy to it. And again, let the Pharisee tell me why these magicians, who caused their own rods to take the outward form of serpents, did not exhibit a leprous hand made clean, but in despair openly confessed: This is the finger of God? And tell me why the priests of Baal did not bring down fire from heaven, and yet Elijah brought it down? Are therefore God's ways certainly characterised by respect of persons? God forbid! But because He is just and a lover of just men He works His gracious miracles through the agency of the saints, but by no means through the agency of the sinful. With excellent reason therefore the man who had been blind rebukes the impudent pratings of the Pharisees and convicts them of an erroneous opinion, when they say He is not from God Who is proved to have a Divine Nature by His power of working miracles.

So Jesus must be admired, the blind man says, as one who is superior to human thought. While you do not know where he is from, the accomplished miracle openly proves his power to me. You do not know who he is and would need testimony from others if there had been no clue of his power. But if his miracles show that he is a great man—and you still do not know where he is from or who he is—it is evident, both from the greatness of his miracles and your foolishness, that he is beyond human comprehension. And from these facts it seems clear that he cannot be called a sinner. Certainly God does not fulfill the requests of sinners but listens instead to the voice of those who show honest behavior and faithfully do his will.… Indeed, he healed a man born blind, and we know that this has never been done before, not even by Moses, whom you admire.

If He were not from God, He would not have performed such a miracle, the likes of which no one has ever performed. Therefore, it is evident that the one who performed such a miracle is more than a man.

1352 Next, he draws his conclusion. He is saying, in effect: From the kind of works that Christ does, it is obvious that he is from God. For if this man were not from God, he could do nothing, that is, freely, often and truly, because "apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5).

"They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out." What was their casting him out but driving him from their society? What cared he for that? They who expelled him could make him no consul: they expelled him; Christ received him. In fact, then, brethren, it was their anger to which his blessing was due.

(Tr. xliv. 14) What meaneth altogether? That he was quite blind. Yet He who opened his eyes, also saves him altogether.

(Tr. xliv. 14) It was they themselves who had made him teacher; themselves, who had asked him so many questions; and now they ungratefully cast him out for teaching.

It is commonly the way with great persons to disdain learning any thing from their inferiors.

They answered and said to him: You were wholly born in sins, and do you teach us? — us, who are reputed to be righteous. Truly these were Pharisees similar to the one who praised himself in prayer, Luke eighteen. And they cast him out, for the truth they inflicted injury upon him. Chrysostom: "You see how much the herald of truth suffered. These things were written so that we too might imitate him in like manner." Similarly concerning Stephen, Acts seven: "And casting him out of the city, they stoned him."

Unable to draw him back by flatteries, nor by cunning, nor by reproaches, they resort to injuries: whence, moved by indignation, they answered and said to him: You were wholly born in sins, and do you teach us?

It is asked why the Pharisees say to him: You were wholly born in sins. The response can be that they speak not from reason but from indignation. Or because he had not withdrawn from the sins in which he had been born through religious observance, as the Pharisees had; or on account of his blindness, which was a punishment for sin, they called him born in sins.

Hard of acceptation to most people are the wounds of refutation, and the consequent correction of error. They are certainly welcome and sweet to the wise, since they convey much profit, and have an improving tendency, although they may carry with them a painful sting. But to those who love sin they are bitter, and wherefore? Because, having fixed their mind on debasing pleasures, they turn away from any warning that draws them thence as vexatious, and deem it a loss to be diverted from their pleasures, setting no value on what is truly profitable.

For just as they who fall overboard from a ship, and, being caught by the current of a river, are not strong enough to resist it, and, thinking it dangerous to swim in opposition to the waves, are simply borne on by the current; so I think these men, of whom we were just speaking, overcome by the tyranny of their own pleasures allow those pleasures to rush on unbridled, and decline to offer any resistance whatever. Hence the wretched Pharisees are displeased, and crying out like wild beasts against him who brought forward excellent arguments, they welcome the beginnings of anger, and spouting forth the extreme rage of madness, unlawfully revile him; and somehow recurring to the haughtiness so natural to them, say that the blind man was born in sins, thus maintaining the Jewish errors, and ignorantly supporting a doctrine that will not hold together. For that no living person, either on his own account or on account of his parents, is born either blind or with any other bodily infirmity; moreover, that God does not visit the sins of their fathers upon children, not unskilfully, in my opinion at least, we have shown at some length, when we had to explain the words: Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? Since therefore the man who had been born blind knew how to refute the Pharisees, he was on that account not only reviled, but cast out by them. And here again learn that what was done is typical of a true event: for that the people of Israel were going to utterly loathe the Gentiles as nurtured in sins from erroneous prejudice, any one can recognise from what the Pharisees said to that man. And they expel him, exactly as they who plead the doctrine of Christ are expelled and cast out by the Jews.

"Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?"

As long as they expected that he would deny Christ, they deemed him trustworthy, calling upon him once and a second time. If ye deemed him not trustworthy, why did ye call and question him a second time? But when he spake the truth, unabashed, then, when they ought most to have admired, they condemned him. But what is the, "Thou wast altogether born in sins"? They here unsparingly reproach him with his very blindness, as though they had said, "Thou art in sins from thy earliest age" insinuating that on this account he was born blind; which was contrary to reason. On this point at least Christ comforting him said, "For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind."

"Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" Why, what had the man said? Did he set forth his private opinion? Did he not set forth a common judgment, saying, "We know that God heareth not sinners"? Did he not produce your own words?

"And they cast him out."

Hast thou beheld the herald of the truth, how poverty was no hindrance to his true wisdom? Seest thou what reproaches, what sufferings he bare from the beginning, and how by word and by deed he testified?

Now these things are recorded, that we too may imitate them. For if the blind man, the beggar, who had not even seen Him, straightway showed such boldness even before he was encouraged by Christ, standing opposed to a whole people, murderous, possessed, and raving, who desired by means of his voice to condemn Christ, if he neither yielded nor gave back, but most boldly stopped their mouths, and chose rather to be cast out than to betray the truth; how much more ought we, who have lived so long in the faith, who have seen ten thousand marvels wrought by faith, who have received greater benefits than he, have recovered the sight of the eyes within, have beheld the ineffable Mysteries, and have been called to such honor, how ought we, I say, to exhibit all boldness of speech towards those who attempt to accuse, and who say anything against the Christians, and to stop their mouths, and not to acquiesce without an effort.

They who for the sake of the truth and the confession of Christ suffer anything terrible and are insulted, these are especially honored. For as he who loseth his possessions for His sake, the same it is who most findeth them; as he who hateth his own life, the same it is who most loveth it; so too he who is insulted, is the same who is most honored. As fell out in the case of the blind man. The Jews cast him out from the Temple, and the Lord of the Temple found him; he was separated from that pestilent company, and met with the Fountain of salvation; he was dishonored by those who dishonored Christ, and was honored by the Lord of Angels. Such are the prizes of truth. And so we, if we leave our possessions in this world, find confidence in the next; if here we give to the afflicted, we shall have rest in heaven; if we be insulted for the sake of God, we are honored both here and there.

So long as they hoped that this man would say something to their liking, they summoned and questioned him, and not just once. But when from his answers they learned that he did not think as they did, but was inclined toward the truth, they revile him as one born in sins. Quite senselessly they reproach him with his blindness and suppose that, as being exceedingly sinful even before his birth, he was condemned to be born blind — which is without foundation. As sons of falsehood, they cast him, the confessor of truth, out of the temple. But this served for his benefit. They cast him out of the temple, and the Lord of the temple immediately found him. They dishonored him for his opinion in favor of Christ, and he was deemed worthy to know the Son of God.

1353 Here the Pharisees condemn the blind man. In this condemnation they fall into three defects or sins, namely, untruth, pride, and injustice. They fall into untruth in reviling the blind man, saying, you were born in utter sin. Here it should be noted that the Jews were of the opinion that all infirmities and temporal adversities beset us on account of our previous sins. This was the opinion given by Eliphaz: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. By the breath of God they perish" (Job 4:7). The reason for this opinion is that in the Old Law temporal goods were promised to the good, and temporal punishment to the evil: "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land" (Is 1:19). Therefore, seeing that this man had been born blind, they believed that this happened on account of his sins, and so they say, you were born in utter sin. But they were wrong, because the Lord said: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents."

They say in utter sin to show that he is defiled by sins not only in his soul, insofar as all of us are born sinners, but even as regards the traces of sin which appear in his body, as blindness. Or according to Chrysostom, in utter sin means that he was in sin all his life, from his earliest years.

They are guilty of pride by rejecting what the man born blind was teaching, when they say, Would you teach us? This was like saying: You are not worthy. This makes their pride clear: for no person, no matter however wise, ought to reject being taught by any inferior. Thus the Apostle teaches (1 Cor 14:30) that if something is revealed to one who is inferior, those who are greater should keep silent and listen. In Daniel we read that all the people, and the elders, listened to the judgment of a young boy, Daniel, whose spirit has been raised up by God.

They are guilty of injustice by unjustly casting him out. Thus we read, and they cast him out, that is, because he spoke the truth. However, in this man born blind there is already fulfilled what our Lord had said: "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!" (Lk 6:22).

Surely God hears sinners. But the one who spoke these words had not yet washed the face of his heart with the waters of Siloam. The sacrament had preceded in his eyes; but the effect of grace had not yet occurred in his heart. When did this blind man wash the face of his heart? When the Lord, having sent him out by the Jews, brought him to Himself. For He found him and said to him, as we have heard: "Do you believe in the Son of God?" And he replied, "Who is He, Lord, that I might believe in Him?" Surely he already saw with his eyes, but with his heart? Not yet. Wait: he would soon see. Jesus answered him, "I am He, who speaks with you." Did he doubt? Immediately he washed his face. For He spoke with him, Siloam, which is interpreted as "Sent." Who is sent but Christ, who often testified, saying: "I do the will of my Father who sent me." Therefore, He was Siloam. The blind man approached with his heart, heard, believed, worshipped: he washed his face, he saw.

But, as I have already said before, brethren, when they expel, the Lord receiveth; for the rather that he was expelled, was he made a Christian. "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Now He washes the face of his heart. "He answered and said," as one still only anointed, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee." The One is He that is sent; the other is one washing his face in Siloam, which is interpreted, Sent. And now at last, with the face of his heart washed, and a conscience purified, acknowledging Him not only as the son of man, which he had believed before, but now as the Son of God, who had assumed our flesh, "he said, Lord, I believe." It is but little to say, "I believe:" wouldst thou also see what he believes Him? "He fell down and worshipped Him."

It is commonly the way with great persons to disdain learning any thing from their inferiors.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out: He knew of Himself, but nonetheless it was reported to Him. And when Jesus had found him, not by chance, but with the purpose of receiving him: Luke 15: "She lights a lamp and searches diligently until she finds it"; He said to him: Do you believe in the Son of God? By seeking He arouses and by arousing He calls, so that He might receive the rejected one, according to that verse of the Psalm: "My father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord has taken me up"; Jeremiah 49: "Leave your orphans, and I will make you live."

The Pharisees cast him out, and the Lord received him. The benign calling of the rejected blind man is conveyed.

It is asked here concerning the fact that the Lord asks whether he believes in the Son of God. It is certain that this stands there for the divine nature: but afterward He adds: You have seen Him: "Him" is a relative pronoun, therefore it refers according to the divine nature: therefore the blind man saw the divine nature. Likewise, if faith is about things that are not seen, how does the Lord exhort him to believe in Him whom he sees?

It must be said that there is a communication of idioms on account of the union in one hypostasis. Whence just as the same one is said to be both dead and eternal, so the same one is He in whom one must believe, because He is equal to the Father: the same one who speaks and is seen, but in the form of a servant.

And finding him, He said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

The man who had been blind has been cast out by the Pharisees, but after no long interval of time Christ seeks him, and finding him, initiates him. in mysteries. Therefore this also shall be a sign to us that God keeps in mind those who are willing to speak on His behalf and who do not shrink from peril through faith in Him. For thou hearest how, making Himself manifest as though to give a good recompense, He hastens to implant in him the highest perfection of the doctrines of the faith. And He proposes the question in order that He may receive the assent. For this is the way of showing faith. Wherefore also those who are going to Divine Baptism are previously as a preparation asked questions concerning their belief, and when they have assented and confessed, then at once we admit them as fit for the grace. Hence therefore arises the significance of the event to us, and we have learnt from Our Saviour Christ Himself how right it is that this profession of faith should be made. Wherefore also the inspired Paul asserted that [Timothy] confessed the confession of these things with many witnesses, meaning the holy angels: and if it is an aweful thing to falsify what is spoken before angels, how much more so before Christ Himself? So then He asks the man who had been blind not simply if he was willing to believe, but also mentions on Whom. For the faith [must be] on the Son of God, and not as on a man like ourselves, but as on God Incarnate. Surely this is the fulness of the mystery concerning Christ. And in saying: Dost thou believe? He all but says "Wilt thou show thyself superior to the madness of those men? Wilt thou bid farewell to their incredu-lousness and accept the faith?" For the emphatic Thou implies such a contradistinction from other persons in some way.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out.

The inspired Evangelist says that our Lord Jesus Christ heard, not implying certainly or of necessity that any one reported the fact to Him, but because, as one of the wise somewhere says: The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and the ear of hearing heareth all things. Surely He hears, as the Psalmist says: He that planted, the ear, doth He not hear? and He that formed the eye, doth He not perceive? When therefore we suffer insult on His account, or endure any grievous thing from those who are wont to fight against God, we are bound to believe that most assuredly God is a looker-on, and listens as it were to the trial that comes upon us: for the very nature of the occurrence, and the sincerity of those who are dishonoured on His account, cry aloud in His Divine Ears.

If any mere confession whatsoever of Christ were the perfection of faith, it would have been said, Do you believe in Christ? But inasmuch as all heretics would have had this name in their mouths, confessing Christ, and yet denying the Son, that which is two of Christ alone, is required of our faith, viz. that we should believe in the Son of God. But what avails it to believe on the Son of God as being a creature, when we are required to have faith in Christ, not as a creature of God, but as the Son of God.

When the man was already healed and had suffered ejection from the synagogue, the Lord put to him the question, "Do you believe on the Son of God?" This was to save him from the thought that he had lost everything by being excluded from the synagogue. It gave him the certainty that confession of the true faith had restored him to immortality. When the man, his soul still unenlightened, answered, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?" the Lord's reply was, "You have both seen him, and it is he that speaks with you." For his goal was to remove the ignorance of the man whose sight he had restored and whom he was now enriching with the knowledge of so glorious a faith. Does the Lord demand from this man, as from others who entreated him to heal them, a confession of faith as the price of their recovery? Emphatically not! For the blind man could already see when he was thus addressed. The Lord asked the question in order to receive the answer, "Lord, I believe." The faith that spoke in that answer was to receive not sight but life.

When they had cast him out from the Temple, Jesus found him. The Evangelist shows, that He came for the purpose of meeting him. And observe how He recompenseth him, by that which is the chiefest of blessings. For He made Himself known to him who before knew Him not, and enrolled him into the company of His own disciples. Observe also how the Evangelist describes the exact circumstances; for when Christ had said, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" the man replied, "Lord, who is He?" For as yet he knew Him not, although he had been healed; because he was blind before he came to his Benefactor, and after the cure, he was being worried by those dogs. Therefore, like some judge at the games, He receiveth the champion who had toiled much and gained the crown. And what saith He? "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" What is this, after so much arguing against the Jews, after so many words, He asketh him, "Dost thou believe?" He spake it not from ignorance, but desiring to make Himself known, and showing that He gently valued the man's faith. "This great multitude," He saith, "hath insulted Me, but of them I make no account; for one thing I care, that thou shouldest believe. For better is one who doeth the will of God, than ten thousand transgressors." "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" As having both been present, and as approving what had been said by him, He asketh this question; and first, He brought him to a state of longing for Himself. For He said not directly, "Believe," but in the way of an enquiry. What then said the man? "Lord, who is He, that I might believe on Him?" The expression is that of a longing and enquiring soul. He knoweth not Him in whose defense he had spoken so much, that thou mayest learn his love of truth. For he had not yet seen Him.

"Jesus," it says, "found him, like a judge of contests who receives a wrestler who is greatly exhausted and crowned." And what does He say? Do you believe in the Son of God? Why does He ask about this, when the man had argued so much with the Jews and said so much on His behalf? He does this not out of ignorance, but out of a desire to teach the blind man knowledge about Himself. Previously, the man had never seen Him at all, nor did he see Him after his healing, because the Jews, those most vicious dogs, were dragging him here and there. Now He asks him so that, in response to his question about who the Son of God is, He might most fittingly point to Himself. At the same time, He also shows him that He highly values his faith, speaking as if to say: "So many people have insulted Me, but I do not hold it against them in the least. I care about one thing only — faith."

1354 After the Evangelist showed how the Jews cast out the man born blind because he persisted in the truth, he here shows how Jesus received him and taught him. First, we see Christ teaching him; secondly, the devotion of the man born blind (v 38); thirdly, the approval of his devotion (v 39). He does three things about the first. First, he shows the eagerness of Christ to teach him; secondly, we see the desire of the man born blind to believe (v 36); and thirdly, the teaching of the faith is given to perfect him (v 37).

1355 Christ's eagerness to teach is described in three ways. First, by his attentive consideration to what was done to the man born blind. For just as a trainer carefully considers what his athlete undergoes for his sake, so Christ attentively considered what the man born blind underwent for the sake of the truth and because of his assertions. And so he says that Jesus heard, attentively considered, that the Pharisees had cast him out, of the temple: "Give heed to me, O Lord, and to the voices of my adversaries" [Jer 18:19].

Secondly, we see Christ's eagerness from his efforts in searching for him, for the Evangelist says, and having found him; for we are said to find what we diligently seek: "She seeks diligently, until she finds it" (Lk 15:8). It is clear from this that Christ was looking for him alone, because he found more faith in him alone that in all the others. And we can see from this that God loves one just person more than ten thousand sinners: "I will make men more rare than fine gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir" (Is 13:12). And in Genesis we read that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of ten just men.

Thirdly, our Lord's eagerness is seen from the seriousness of his question; he said, Do you believe in the Son of God? The blind man was an image of those to be baptized. Thus the custom arose in the Church of questioning those to be baptized about their faith: "Baptism—now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience" (1 Pet 3:21). When asked about his faith he does not say, "Do you believe in Christ?" but Do you believe in the Son of God? He does this, as Hilary says, because it would develop that some would profess Christ, and yet deny that he was the Son of God and God, as Arius erred. These words clearly exclude this error: for if Christ were not God, we would not have to believe in him, since God alone is the object of faith, which rests on the first truth. Thus he significantly says, in the Son (in Filium); for I am certainly able to believe some creature, such as Peter and Paul (credere Petro et Paulo), yet I do not believe in Peter (credere in Petrum), but in God (in Deum) alone as the object of faith. Thus it is clear that the Son of God is not a creature: "You believe in God, believe also in me" (Jn 14:1).

He answered and said: Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? As if to say: I am ready to believe: whence Chrysostom: "This is the word of one who inquires and desires"; therefore he is instructed. The blind man consented to faith.

The soul furnished with sound reason, diligently seeking the word of truth with the eyes of the understanding free, without embarrassment makes straight for it like a ship going into port, and obtains its advantages by a chase without fatigue. And again the man who had been blind will be a proof of what has been said. For when he had already by many arguments and reasonings admired the mystery concerning Christ, and moreover had been struck with astonishment at His unspeakable might, which had been experienced not by any other but by himself in himself, he is found thus ready to believe and without delay proceeds to do so. For see, see, he earnestly asks upon whom he should fasten that faith which had been already built up within him. For this alone was lacking to him, and he was previously prepared for it, as we have said.

(Hom. lix. 1) But the blind man did not yet know Christ, for before he went to Christ he was blind, and after his cure, he was taken hold of by the Jews: He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on Him? The speech this of a longing and enquiring mind. He knows not who He is for whom he had contended so much; a proof to thee of his love of truth. The Lord however says not to him, I am He who healed thee; but uses a middle way of speaking, Thou hast both seen Him.

Since he could not yet say "I believe" but as in ignorance answered, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" he was therefore on the borderline, so to speak, between unbelief and belief.

The blind man, recognizing his voice—remember he had not seen him yet—said, "And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him." With good reason he thought that he who had given him sight even though he was beyond hope could also show him the Son of God.

"Lord, who is the Son of God?" he asks with love.

1356 Next he mentions the desire of the man born blind to believe. We have to recall that this man had not yet physically seen Christ: for he had not seen him when Christ anointed his eyes and sent him to the pool of Siloam, and when he wanted to go back to him he was detained by the Pharisees and the Jews. However, although he had not physically seen Jesus, he believed that the one who opened his eyes was the Son of God. And so he breaks out in words of desire and intense longing, and says, And who is he, sir, namely, the Son of God, who opened my eyes, that I may believe in him? It is clear from this that he knew something about Jesus, and did not know other things about him. For if he had not known him, he would not have argued so firmly on his behalf; and if he had not been ignorant of other things, he certainly would not have said, Who is he, sir? "My soul yearns for you in the night," that is, the night of ignorance (Is 26:9).

(Tr. xliv. 15) First, He washes the face of his heart. Then, his heart's face being washed, and his conscience cleansed, he acknowledges Him as not only the Son of man, which he believed before, but as the Son of God, Who had taken flesh upon Him: And he said, Lord, I believe. I believe, is a small thing. Wouldest thou see what he believes of Him? And falling down, he worshipped Him. (Vulgate)

Worship follows faith, and faith is confirmed by power. But if you say that believers also know, they know from what they believe; and vice versa, they believe from what they know. We know God from his power. We, therefore, believe in him who is known, and we worship him who is believed.

An example to us, not to pray to God with uplifted neck, but prostrate upon earth, suppliantly to implore His mercy.

I believe, Lord; and by the service of devotion: And falling down he adored Him, as God, who alone is to be adored with latria: whence the Lord answered the devil in Matthew 4: "You shall adore the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve"; Deuteronomy 6: "You shall fear the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve."

Quick to make a confession, I mean as regards his faith, and warm in showing piety, is the man who had been blind. For when he knew that the One present with him and visible to his eyes was truly the Only-Begotten Son, he worshipped Him as God, although beholding Him in the flesh without the glory which is really God-befitting. But having had his heart illumined by Christ's indwelling power and authority, he advances to wise and good thoughts by fair reasoning, and beholds the beauty of His Divine and Ineffable Nature; for he would not have worshipped Him as God unless he believed Him to be God, having been prepared and led thus to think by what had happened unto himself, even the miraculously accomplished marvellous deed. And since we transferred all the circumstances connected with the blind man to the history of the Gentiles, let us now speak again concerning this. For see, I pray you, how he fulfils by the prefiguring of the worship in spirit the type to which the Gentiles were conducted by their faith. For it was the custom for Israel to serve the Lord of all according to the bidding of the Law, with sacrifices of oxen and incense and with offerings of other animals; but the faithful among the Gentiles know not this manner of service but were turned to the other, that is, the spiritual, which God says is truly and especially dear and sweet to Him. For He says: I will not eat the flesh of hulls, neither will I drink the blood of goats. And in preference He bids us offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, that is, worship with song, to celebrate which the Psalmist through faith in the Holy Spirit sees that all the Gentiles would go up, and says as if to our Lord and Saviour: All the earth shall worship Thee, and shall sing unto Thee; yea they shall sing to Thy name. Moreover, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself shows the spiritual to be better than the legal service, when He says to the woman of Samaria: Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. And if we rightly think, we shall conclude that the holy angels also are distinguished by this kind [of service], presenting unto God such worship as a sort of spiritual offering. For instance when the Spirit gave command to those above to bring God-befitting honour to the Firstborn and Only-Begotten, He says: And let all the angels of God worship Him. Moreover the Divine Psalmist called us to do this, saying: O come let us worship and fall down before Him. And it would not be difficult to treat of this matter at great length; but putting a convenient limit to our words, we will abstain from bringing forward any more arguments for the present. Except that we will once more repeat that the man who had been blind admirably carries out the type of the service of the Gentiles, making his worship the close companion of his confession of faith.

"He saith, Lord, I believe; and he worshiped Him."

He said not, "I am He that healed thee, that bade thee, Go, wash in Siloam"; but keeping silence on all these points, He saith, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" and then the man, showing his great earnestness, straightway worshiped; which few of those who were healed had done; as, for instance, the lepers, and some others; by this act declaring His divine power. For that no one might think that what had been said by him was a mere expression, he added also the deed.

(Hom. lix. 1) He adds the deed to the word, as a clear acknowledgment of His divine power. The Lord replies in a way to confirm His faith, and at the same time stirs up the minds of His followers: And Jesus said, For judgment have I come into this world.

And he immediately believes and in deed reveals a faith that is fervent and true, worships and by action confirms the word, that he glorifies Him as God because the law commands to worship God alone (Deut. 6:13). Note, if you will, that this miracle was also accomplished in a spiritual sense. Blind was every man in general from birth, that is, from subjection to birth, with which corruption is joined, for from the time we were condemned to death and to multiplication through passionate birth, from that time a kind of thick cloud spread over our mental eyes, and perhaps that "garment of skin" which Holy Scripture mentions (Gen. 3:21). Blind was, in particular, the pagan people. And they were blind from birth. For example, the Greeks, because they deified what is born and corruptible, became blind, according to the saying: "Their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Likewise the wise men (magi) of Persia spent their lives in discussions about birth and birthdays. This blind man, that is, every person in general, or the Gentiles in particular, Jesus "saw." Since the blind man could not see the Creator, He, out of the compassion of His mercy, Himself "visited us, the Dayspring from on high" (Luke 1:78). How did He see him? "Passing by," that is, not while being in heaven and, in the words of the prophet, bowing down "from heaven and looking upon all the sons of men" (Ps. 13:2), but having appeared on earth. And in another sense: "passing by" He saw the Gentiles, that is, He did not come to them primarily. For He came "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), and then, as if in passing, He also looked upon the Gentiles, sitting in the darkness of complete ignorance. How does He heal blindness? By spitting on the ground and making clay. For whoever believes that the Word descended into the holy Virgin like a drop falling upon the earth, that person will anoint his spiritual eyes with clay made from spittle and earth, that is, with the one Christ, composed of Divinity — of which the drop and the spittle serve as a sign (symbol) — and Humanity, of which the earth serves as a sign, from which is the body of the Lord. Will the healing stop at faith? No; one must also go to Siloam, the fountain of baptism, and be baptized into the One who was Sent, that is, Christ. For all of us who were spiritually baptized were baptized into Christ. And whoever is baptized will after this be subjected to temptations as well. Perhaps for the sake of Christ who healed him, he will be "brought before kings and governors" (Luke 21:12). Therefore one must be firm and stand unwavering in confession; not deny out of fear, but, if need be, become both excommunicated and cast out of the synagogue, according to what was said: "you will be hated by all for My name's sake" (Matt. 24:9), and "they will put you out of the synagogues" (Jn. 16:2). If people who are hostile to the truth drive out the one who confesses it and remove him from what is holy and precious to them, that is, from wealth and glory, then Jesus will find him, and when he is dishonored by his enemies, he will be especially honored by Christ with knowledge and a more thorough faith. For then he will worship Christ most of all as the Man who is seen and as the true Son of God. For the Son of God is not one person and the Son of Mary another, as Nestorius impiously blasphemed, but One and the Same is Son of God and Son of Man. Look. When the man who was once blind asked, "Who is the Son of God, that I may believe in Him?" the Lord answered, "It is He whom you have seen and who is speaking with you." And who was speaking, if not He who was born of Mary? Yet He is also the Son of God — not one and another. Therefore holy Mary is truly the Theotokos. For She gave birth to the Son of God who became flesh, undivided and One in two natures, who is Christ the Lord.

1358 Then when the Evangelist says, he said, Lord, I believe, we see the devout faith of the man born blind. And first, he professes with his lips the faith in his heart, saying, Lord, I believe: "Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved" (Rom 10:10). Secondly, he shows it in his conduct, and he worshipped him. This shows that he believes in the divine nature of Christ, because those whose consciences have been cleansed know Christ not only as the son of man, which was externally obvious, but as the Son of God, who had taken flesh: for adoration is due to God alone: "You will adore the Lord, your God" [Dt 6:13].

(Verse 53, 54.) And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there. And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they marveled and said. After the parables that he spoke to the people, and that only the apostles understood, he went to his own country to teach more openly there.

Where does this wisdom and these virtues come from? The Nazarenes marvel at where he gets his wisdom and virtue; but the error is obvious, for they suspect that he is the son of a carpenter.

After the parables which the Lord spake to the people, and which the Apostles only understand, He goes over into His own country that He may teach there also.

Wonderful folly of the Nazarenes! They wonder whence Wisdom itself has wisdom, whence Power has mighty works! But the source of their error is at hand, because they regard Him as the Son of a carpenter; as they say, Is not this the carpenter's son?

Matthew says "these parables" because in a short time He would tell them other ones. He departed so that He could benefit others by His presence. "His own country" means Nazareth, for He was raised there. He was teaching in the synagogue, speaking openly in public, that they might not later have grounds to claim that He was teaching things contrary to the law.

The Nazarenes were foolish to think that low birth and plain ancestry hinder anyone from pleasing God. Let us suppose that Jesus was simply man and not God. What would have prevented Him from being a great wonderworker? So they are proven to be foolish and spiteful. They ought rather to have taken pride that their native city had produced such a good man.

The Lord is dishonored by his own. Although his wisdom in teaching and his mighty works excited admiration, their faithlessness held them back from true discernment. For they did not believe that God was doing these things in a man. Moreover, they referred to his father, his mother, brothers and sisters and took offense at him.

Thus the Lord is held in no honour by His own; and though the wisdom of His teaching, and the power of His working raised their admiration, yet do they not believe that He did these things in the name of the Lord, and they cast His father's trade in His teeth. Amid all the wonderful works which He did, they were moved with the contemplation of His Body, and hence they ask, Whence hath this man these things? And thus they were offended in him.

And what doth he now call His country? As it seems to me, Nazareth. "For He did not many mighty works there," it is said, but in Capernaum He did miracles: wherefore He said also, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto Heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

But having come there, while He slackens somewhat in His miracles; so as not to inflame them unto more envy, nor to condemn them more grievously, by the aggravation of their unbelief: He yet puts forth a doctrine, having no less of wonder in it than the miracles. For these utterly senseless men, when they ought to have marvelled, and to have been amazed at the power of His words, they on the contrary hold Him cheap, because of him who seemed to be His father; yet we know they had many examples of these things in the former times, and from fathers of no note had seen illustrious children. For so David was the son of a certain mean husbandman, Jesse; and Amos, the child of a goatherd, and himself a goatherd; and Moses too, the lawgiver, had a father very inferior to himself. When they therefore, for this especially, ought to adore and be amazed, that being of such parents He spake such things, it being quite manifest, that so it was not of man's care, but of God's grace: yet they, what things they should admire Him for, for those they despise Him.

He is moreover continually frequenting the synagogues, lest if He were always abiding in the wilderness, they should the more accuse Him as making a schism, and fighting against their polity. Being amazed therefore, and in perplexity, they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these powers?" either calling the miracles powers, or even the wisdom itself.

The synagogues could not be his. A malicious and disbelieving crowd gathered there. A people full of hate rather than love came together. A group of ill-disposed and ill-mannered people assembled. "He began to teach in their synagogues, so that they were astonished." They were astonished because of indignation and not because of grace. They were amazed because of envy and not because of praise. They raged because what the proud seated on the floor were unable to discern, humility on its feet was thoroughly teaching.

"So that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did he get this wisdom?' " The one who speaks this way does not know God, from whom is wisdom and from whom are mighty works. Solomon points to that source of wisdom. While still young, he accepted the highest honor of the kingdom so he might rule the people entrusted to him with virtue and not with arrogance, with wisdom and not with pride, with his heart and not with his head. He wanted wisdom from God, earnestly asked for it and received it. "Where did he get this wisdom and these mighty works?" The mighty power that gives eyesight denied by nature, that restores hearing to those drowned in silence, that unscrambles the words of those who are mute, that enables the lame to walk again and that orders souls headed for the realm of the dead to return to their bodies is from God, unless someone envious of salvation should deny it.

He taught in their synagogues where great numbers were met, because it was for the salvation of the multitude that He came from heaven upon earth. It follows; So that they marvelled, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these many mighty works? His wisdom is referred to His doctrine, His mighty works to His miracles.

As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? " Thus spake even they who despised His outward form.

And coming into his own country. His country is sometimes called Nazareth, where he was brought up, and there he worked few miracles; sometimes Bethlehem, where he was born; sometimes Capharnaum, because he worked miracles there. And he taught them in their synagogues, etc. There follows the wonder. And first the wonder is set forth; secondly, its effect is identified. He says: so that they wondered. It was not surprising if they wondered; Ps 118:129: your testimonies are wonderful. They wondered whence those powers came: for wonder is caused when the effect is seen but the cause is unknown. They saw the manifest effect, but did not know the cause; hence they said: whence has this man this wisdom and these mighty works? But this was a foolish wonder, because 1 Cor 1:24 states that he is the power and the wisdom of God. But they did not know this, and therefore they wondered.

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

(Quæst. in Matt. q. 17.) No wonder then that any kinsmen by the mother's side should be called the Lord's brethren, when even by their kindred to Joseph some are here called His brethren by those who thought Him the son of Joseph.

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"— of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." [Jude 1] For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

And verily the blessed Jeremiah says, as to our Lord Jesus Christ, "For both thy brethren and the house of thy father, they too despised Thee, and they cried out; of thy followers were they gathered together: believe them not, for they will speak fair words unto Thee." [Jeremiah 12:6] For His brethren who before the faith thought little of Him, and in the words just spoken, all but attempt to cry out against Him, were gathered together through faith, and have spoken fair words unto Him, both aiding others, and striving with words in behalf of the faith. Very watchfully did the Prophet, having named His brethren, profitably add, The house of Thy father, lest they too should be supposed to have been of the blessed Virgin, rather than of His father Joseph alone.

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

And yet some very depraved men take from this the basis of their view that there were many brothers of our Lord as a point of tradition. If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph's, Mary never would have been transferred to the apostle John as his mother at the time of the Passion, nor would the Lord have said to them both, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother," [John 19:26-27] unless perhaps he was leaving his disciple's filial love in order to comfort her who was left behind.

But clearly this was the son of the carpenter who was subduing iron with fire, melting away all the might of the world with good judgment and forming the mass into every work that was humanly useful. He was molding the formless material of our bodies into members for different ministries and for every work of eternal life. They all became irritated at these things. Among the many astonishing things he did, they were most deeply moved by his contemplativeness and his bodily self-control.

And this was the carpenter's son who subdues iron by means of fire, who tries the virtue of this world in the judgment, and forms the rude mass to every work of human need; the figure of our bodies, for example, to the divers ministrations of the limbs, and all the actions of life eternal.

How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren — by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 15:12] "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, [Deuteronomy 17:15] "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, [Deuteronomy 22:1] "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, [Romans 9:3-4] "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis [Genesis 13:8, 11] we read, "And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, [Genesis 12:4] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. [Genesis 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. [Genesis 29:11] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, [Genesis 29:15] "Laban said to Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, [Genesis 31:36-37] "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca.

Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, [John 20:17] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. [Isaiah 66:5] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:11] "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, [Genesis 20:11] "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister...

It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: [Luke 1:18] "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, [John 1:45] "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

(Verse 55, 56.) Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did he get all these things? And they took offense at him. The error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics. For they saw Jesus Christ merely as a man, so that the carpenters thought him to be the son: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Are you surprised if they err about his brothers, when they err about his father? This place has been explained more fully in the aforementioned book against Helvedius.

(in Helvid. 14.) Those who are here called the Lord's brethren, are the sons of a Mary, His Mother's sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph, that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and this is the Mary who is called the mother of James the Less.

And when they are mistaken in His Father, no wonder if they are also mistaken in His brethren. Whence it is added, Is not his mother Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

This error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of the heretics, for they perceived Jesus Christ to be man so far as to think Him the son of a carpenter.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

"Is not this the carpenter's son?" The greater then the marvel, and the more abundant the ground of amaze. "Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this man these things? And they were offended in Him."

Seest thou that Nazareth was where He was discoursing? "Are not his brethren," it is said, "such a one, and such a one?" And what of this? Why, by this especially you ought to have been led on to faith. But envy you see is a poor base thing, and often falls foul of itself. For what things were strange and marvellous, and enough to have gained them over, these offended them.

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," [Luke 1:35] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

[NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.

(non occ. cf. Serm. 135. App.) For the Father of Christ is that Divine Workman who made all these works of nature, who set forth Noah's ark, who ordained the tabernacle of Moses, and instituted the Ark of the covenant; that Workman who polishes the stubborn mind, and cuts down the proud thoughts.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John's uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord's sister; and her son, John, the Lord's nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ's peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards...

Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

And they set forth their wonder and their knowledge: hence they said, is not this the carpenter's son? For he was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was not an ironworker but a woodworker: although he could also be called the son of the craftsman who fashioned the dawn and the sun, Ps 73:16. Is not his mother called Mary? They knew all the things that pertained to his humanity. About Mary it is stated above at 1:18: when his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, etc. And his brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Helvidius understood these to be sons of Mary. But this is false; rather they were his cousins. Or they are called brethren because they were of the kindred of Joseph, who was thought to be the father of Jesus. Gen 13:8: let there be no strife between me and you, for we are brethren, Abraham said to Lot: although Lot was the son of his brother.

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.

And in the same way is to be understood what follows: and his sisters, are they not all with us? Therefore from those things which pertained to the flesh, they went forth into wonder, saying: whence then has this man all these things?

(Verse 58) And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. Not because he was unable to do many miracles for them, who were unbelieving; but rather because in doing many miracles he would condemn the unbelieving citizens. It can also be understood in another way, that Jesus is despised in his own home and country, that is, among the Jewish people. And therefore, he performed only a few signs there, so that they would not become completely without excuse. But he performs greater signs daily among the nations through his apostles, not so much in the healing of bodies, but in the salvation of souls.

Not that because they did not believe He could not do His mighty works; but that He might not by doing them be condemning His fellow-citizens in their unbelief.

Or we may understand it otherwise, that Jesus is despised in His own house and country, signifies in the Jewish people; and therefore He did among them few miracles, that they might not be altogether without excuse; but among the Gentiles He does daily greater miracles by His Apostles, not so much in healing their bodies, as in saving their souls.

But if His miracles raised their wonder, why did He not work many? Because He looked not to display of Himself, but to what would profit others; and when that did not result, He despised what pertained only to Himself that He might not increase their punishment. Why then did He even these few miracles? That they should not say, We should have believed had any miracles been done among us.

It seems to me that the production of miracles is similar in some ways to the case of physical things. Cultivation is not sufficient to produce a harvest of fruits unless the soil, or rather the atmosphere, cooperates to this end. And the atmosphere of itself is not sufficient to produce a harvest without cultivation. The one who providentially orders creation did not design things to spring up from the earth without cultivation. Only in the first instance did he do so when he said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, with the seed sowing according to its kind and according to its likeness."It is just this way in regard to the production of miracles. The complete work resulting in a healing is not displayed without those being healed exercising faith. Faith, of whatever quality it might be, does not produce a healing without divine power.

Christ indeed came to his own country, because it was written, "He came among his own, and his own did not receive him." In plain fact, when he says, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country," he is teaching that it is a painful situation to have influence among his own. To stand out among the local denizens is similar to an inflammation. A near relation's glory burns the near relations. If neighbors have to pay homage to a neighbor, they consider it servitude. "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." Power has no effect where unbelief does not deserve it. And while Christ does not demand a reward when he heals, he becomes indignant when injustice is shown to him instead of honor.

Hence it follows: and he did not work many miracles there; not because he could not, since he was omnipotent, but he did not, because the purpose for which he worked miracles was that they might believe in him. But they held him in contempt, because they interpreted things in a bad sense, and therefore they were not disposed to faith: yet he worked some, so that they might be rendered inexcusable; and therefore he says not many, because he worked some. And this was on account of their unbelief.